Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2498/13 to 2500/B of 1984, decided on 4th March, 1985.

‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Power of High Court to grant bail under S. 497, Cr.P.C. in respect of scheduled offences triable by Special Court under provisions of Ordinance IX Of 1984 remaining uneffected‑‑High Court, held, had jurisdiction to grant bail in respect of offences under Ordinance IX of 1984.

Altaf Hussain v. The State P L D 1985 Lah.10 ref.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 466, 468 & 471‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Lady accused in jail since about two years and awaiting commencement of trial‑‑Woman entitled to bail under subsection (1) of S. 497 even in cases of very serious nature‑‑Concession of bail cannot be refused to woman on ground of her being accused of non‑bailable offences‑‑Legislature, in matters of bail, has exhibited its anxiety in favour of sick and infirm persons, minors and woman‑‑Interim bail granted to accused confirmed.

‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 466‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Bail cannot and should not be refused as measure of punishment to accused‑‑Accused is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is proved beyond doubt‑‑On basis of such initial presumption, accused entitled to every freedom of opportunity to look after his defence.

Jawahar A. Naqvi for Petitioner.

Nazar Hussain Dogar for the State.

Date of hearing: 24th October, 1984.

.‑‑ This order shall dispose of Petitions Nos. 2498/13/1984, 2499/13/1984 and 2500/13/1984 filed by Mst Zeenat Ali for her release on bail after arrest. She, vide F.I.R. No 136, dated 14‑‑6‑1979, stands charged for having committed offences falling under sections 403, 409, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In F I.R. 136/79 it is stated that on 21‑5‑1978, she managed to open S.B. Account No. 689 under a false/ fictitious name of one Mst. Almas Ali with Mozang Chungi Branch of National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore, with an initial deposit of Rs.1,400. Subsequently with the aid of four fake mail transfers, allegedly received from Wahda Bank, Benghazi a sum of Rs.1,39,696 was shown in deposit in the aforesaid account of Mst. Almas Ali, real name Mst. Zeenat Ali. In this act of forgery and fraud Maqsood Ali and others were also her collaborators. Accused applicant, then is stated to have fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,42,500 from the aforesaid bank at different times through fourteen cheques. On the report of the Branch Manager, criminal case was registered against the applicant under the aforesaid sections of the P.P.C. and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. In Criminal Miscellaneous 2499/13/1984, under almost identical set of circumstances criminal case was registered against Mst. Zeenat Ali except that, in this case false account was opened by her in the name of one Mst. Tallat Zafar with an initial deposit of Rs.1,000. Sum of Rs.92,573 was subsequently added through 3 false and bogus mail transfers. This amount was also withdrawn by her through 12 cheques issued by her.

3. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2500/13/1984 she is alleged to have opened an account with Abbot Road Branch, in the fictitious name of Mrs. Rubab Ali. Having so succeeded, sum of Rs.72,582 was credited to her account on the basis of two forged mail transfers. This amount, like the other amounts was also withdrawn by her.

4. Accused applicant, after registration of cases was released on bail by Special Judge (Anti‑Corruption), Lahore vide order dated 6‑11‑1980. These criminal cases, were taken cognizance of by the Martial Law Authorities and in consequence bail orders were recalled and she was arrested and sent to jail. With enforcement of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, petitioner applied for bail. Learned Judge (Special Court) vide order dated 16‑6‑1984 through separate orders passed in each bail‑application, finding no merits, has proceeded to dismiss the petitions. Hence these petitions for bail after arrest in this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties, have been heard. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant, that there was no evidence available with the police to connect the applicant with the offences charged. It was also submitted that the applicant, being a woman was entitled to the concession of bail finder proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. On these facts, it was contended, that the applicant, was allowed bail by the Special Judge (Anti‑Corruption), Lahore. The applicant, is stated to be in jail, since 23‑11‑1982. The learned counsel for State‑Respondent, seriously opposed grant of bail to the accused. It was argued that there was enough material available with the police to connect the applicant with the offences charged against her. In view of her involvement and the nature of the offences, applicant, though being a woman, was not entitled to avail the concession of bail for she was guilty of fraud, forgery and misappropriation of public funds. This Court in Altaf Hussain v. The State P L D 1985 Lah. 10, has found that powers to allow bail under section 497, Cr.P.C., in respect of scheduled offences triable by the Special Court under the provisions of Ordinance IX of 1984 are unaffected. Jurisdiction, thus is available. Question falling for consideration, therefore, is whether the applicant in the light of the allegations made against her was entitled to be released on bail during the trial.

6. Applicant, is confined in Jail since 23‑11‑1982 awaiting for her trial to commence. In terms of proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., it is open to the Court to grant bail to a woman, even in cases where she was accused of very serious offences, punishable with death or transportation for life. Mere fact that she has been arraigned for committing non‑bailable offences, was in itself no ground to refuse, her the concession of bail. Her stay in jail during the trial period would not in .any manner further the cause of the trial. In making a departure in case of minors (under the age of sixteen years), woman, sick or infirm persons the legislature, in the matters of bail, has exhibited its anxiety in favour of the aforesaid classes of persons. Bail, cannot and should not be refused as measure of punishment to the accused. In the system of law prevailing an accused is presumed to be innocent till such time that his guilt was proved beyond doubt. The accused, therefore, on the basis of this initial presumption, is entitled to every freedom of opportunity to look after her defence. Applicant, a woman therefore, fully qualifies for grant of bail. Interim bail allowed to the applicant vide order dated 3‑10‑1984 in the above‑noted three criminal cases, is confirmed.

S. G. D.

Anticipatory bail confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.