| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2687 2016 SLD 2687 2016 PCRLJ 396 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. S-205 of 2013, decided on 7th September, 2015.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Safdar Ali G. Bhutto for Applicants. Shahzado Saleem, A.P.G. along with I.O. Inspector Qazi Sharaf-ud-Din for the State.
Criminal Bail Application No. S-205 of 2013, decided on 7th September, 2015.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Safdar Ali G. Bhutto for Applicants. Shahzado Saleem, A.P.G. along with I.O. Inspector Qazi Sharaf-ud-Din for the State.
ABDUL SATTAR AND ANOTHER - --ApplicantS
VS
THE STATE - --Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --------- ----------S. 498 --------- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 467, 468, 471-A & 34 --------- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) --------- Bail before arrest, refusal of --------- Forgery for purpose of cheating; forgery of available security, will, etc.; criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent; common intention --------- Criminal misconduct --------- Plea that documentary evidence being in possession of prosecution --------- Relevancy at bail stage --------- Plea of mala fide, proof of --------- Accused, Ex-Town Municipal Officer, after his retirement, in collusion with others, had withdrawn certain public funds from bank illegally and without any authorization and misappropriated the same by way of forgery and fraud --------- Accused had not denied issuance of cheques and encashment of government money on strength thereof; hence, prima facie, no mala fide on part of the Investigating Agency existed to falsely involve the accused --------- Accused had also not denied his continuous dealing with financial affairs of Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) after his retirement, which, in no way, appeared to be authorized and legal --------- Accused, prima facie, as per collected evidence, appeared to be linked with commission of alleged offence --------- Mere plea of 'mala fide' or 'departmental intrigue' alone would not help accused for extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail --------- High Court observed that court would not have power to grant pre-arrest bail, unless all conditions specified by Supreme Court, especially, the condition regarding mala fide, for allowing bail before arrest, were proved --------- Plea that documentary evidence was in possession of prosecution was not relevant in the present case, and the same would frustrate the very object and purpose of exercise of extra-ordinary concession of bail --------- Accused had failed to establish any mala fide on part of the Investigating Agency or department intrigue; and they rather appeared to be prima facie linked with alleged offence of 'corruption' , which qualified the term…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492