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 Miscellaneous No. 2999 of 1966, decided on 12th December 1966.
S. 497(5)‑Bail Non- bailable offences not punishable with death or transportation for life‑Bail to be granted as a rule‑Refusal of bail only an exception to rule‑Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed‑Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 408 & 420.
It is now well settled that in the case of non‑bailable offences which are not punishable with death or transportation for life, the grant of bail should be the rule and the refusal thereof should be an exception to that rule. An accused person is presumed under law to be innocent till his guilt is proved. Ash a presumably innocent person he is entitled to every freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. It goes with out saying that an accused person, if he enjoys freedom, will be in a better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody.
Perwaiz Akhtar for Petitioner:
Col. Mohd. Iqbal for Respondent.
Ghulam Safdar Shah, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
This application has been put in on behalf of M. Y. Paricha, Proprietor Messrs PASCO Corporation (Engineers) Bull Road, Lahore, under section 497 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein it has been prayed that the bail of Ch. Mansha Khan should be cancelled and he should be remanded to custody. Notice of this application was issued to the respondent on the 22nd September 1966, by my learned brother Fazle Ghani, J.
2. The case of the prosecution, briefly narrated, is that the petitioner's firm had been ordered to supply Trailer Fire Fighter with accessories for Rs. 14,000 to Charsadda Sugar Mills, on the 6th of May 1966. This consignment was received by the said mills, on the 20th of August 1966. The mill issued a cross Draft dated the 22nd August 1966, in the name of Messrs PASCO Corporation through National Bank of Pakistan, The Mall, Lahore. This draft for Rs. 14.000 was collected by the respondent as an employee of the firm. On the 1st of September 1966, it came to the notice of the petitioner's firm, that the respondent had received the amount of the draft by fraudulently opening an account in the name of Messrs PASCO Corporation personating himself, as a proprietor of the said firm with the National Bank of Pakistan, Baghbanpura Branch, Lahore. On the report of M. Y. Paricha, a case under sections 408 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against the respondent at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore, on the 13th of Septem ber 1966.
3. The respondent was admitted to bail before arrest by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by his order dated the 19th of September 1966, who was of the view that the; dispute between the parties admittedly connected with some payment of money, which money the respondent had misappropriated in this capacity being an agent or a partner of the firm.
4. The ‑maximum sentence laid down in either of sec tions 408 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code is seven years.
5. It is now well settled that in the case of non‑bailable' offences which are not punishable with death or transportation for life, the grant of bail should be the rule and the refusal thereof should be an exception to that rule. An accused person presumed under law to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumably innocent person he is entitled to every freedom and in every opportunity to look after his own case. It goes without saying that an accused person, if he enjoys freedom, will be in better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody.
6. Ch. Abdul Aziz, A. S. L, who is investigating the case informs me that the respondent has joined the investigation of the case and the challan is being submitted in the Court.
7. Taking all the circumstances of the case into considera tion, it cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has exercised his discretion arbitrarily and not judicially. I see no adequate ground for interference in the discretion exer cised by him in the matter. With these remarks, application for cancellation of bail is dismissed and the notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged.
Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer