Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1968, decided on 28th June 1968.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan. Lahore, dated the Ist March 1967, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 603 of 1967).
S. 497---Mere accusa tion of non-bailable offence would not disentitle accused from being bailed out---Discretion to grant bail in non-bailable offence---Must be exercised in judicial and proper manner-Case under Ss. 420 & 468, P. P. C.--Challan against accused already put up in Court and accused no longer required for investigation-No suggestion that accused would abscond or tamper with witnesses-Bail granted by Supreme Court.
Shah Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Appellant.
Shamim Ahmad Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.
Date of hearing: 28th June 1968.
--This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court by which he confirmed refusal of bail to the appellant.
A case has been registered at Mumtaz Abad Police Station, Multan, against this appellant and 4 others under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code upon the allegations that under a forged cheque purported to have been issued by Ahmad Hussain in his capacity as the Managing Director of Allah Wassaya Textile Mills, Multan, a sum of Rs. 78,500 was withdrawn from a Bank at Lahore.
At the relevant time the appellant was the Accountant of the Mills. As the cheque book, out of which the forged cheque was utilised used to be kept in his custody he was. made, an accused in this case.
On behalf of the appellant, it is stated that there was nothing to show that the appellant had taken any part in procurement or forging of the cheque in question or in its encashment or in the disposal of the proceeds. On the other hand, he gave information to the Police which led to the exposure of the defalcation.
In this case application fur bail has been made at the initial stage of the case, and it is, therefore, not possible to enter into the merits of the accusation.
The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant would no longer be required for the purpose of investi gation because the challan has been pat in the Court. In view of the nature of accusation he has found it difficult to contend that this is not a fit and proper case for grant of bail. There is no suggestion whatsoever that there is a danger of appellant's absconding or of the witnesses being tampered with if he is released on bail. Mere accusation of a non-bailable offence would not disentitle an accused from being bailed out if the lave allows it. No doubt, it is true, that the law confers wide discretionary powers on Courts to grant or refuse bail in a non bailable offence, bat such discretion must be exercised in a judicial and proper manner. The learned Single Judge, in his very brief order, disposes of the matter thus :
"The illness of the parent is no ground for allowing bail to the petitioner. The application is dismissed."
From the above, it will be difficult to say that the learned Single Judge kept in view the principles which should guide a Court in the matter of allowance or refusal of bail.
The learned counsel for the State has also failed to advance any good ground for refusal of bail to the appellant.
After taking into careful consideration the principles governing release on bail we are of the view that the application for bail should be granted in this case.
We, accordingly, allow this appeal and direct that the appellant will continue on the same bail as already granted him during the trial of the case.
This order will, however, not prevent the Magistrate from cancelling the bail for good and sufficient reasons.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer