| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2240 2021 SLD 2240 2021 PLJ 1 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. A. Nos. 8 & 24 of 2020, decided on 28.12.2019, Date of hearing: 4.5.2020. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 8.4.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2019, etc.)
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Kh. Ansar Ahmed, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 8 of 2020). Sardar Amjad Aslam Khan, Chief Prosecutor for
Respondent (in Crl. A. No. 8 of 2020). Mr. Sagheer Javed, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 24 of 2020). Sardar Amjad Aslam Khan, Chi
Crl. A. Nos. 8 & 24 of 2020, decided on 28.12.2019, Date of hearing: 4.5.2020. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 8.4.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2019, etc.)
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Kh. Ansar Ahmed, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 8 of 2020). Sardar Amjad Aslam Khan, Chief Prosecutor for
Respondent (in Crl. A. No. 8 of 2020). Mr. Sagheer Javed, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 24 of 2020). Sardar Amjad Aslam Khan, Chi
ABDUL WAHEED KHAN ETC.
VS
EHTESAB BUREAU THROUGH THEIR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR, MIRPUR ETC.
Law:
Section:
Azad Penal Code-- ----Ss. 467, 468, 470 109--Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, Ss. 9, 10 11--Post-arrest bail-Rejected--Appeal rejected--Revision petition--Dismissed--Filing of application for after arrest bail due to closing of Ehtesab Court--Application was returned--Report of parallel banking was submitted--Inquiry report--Filing of reference--Question of time-barred investigation--Entitlement for concession of bail--Non-attraction of rule of consistency--Challenge to-- Appellants, herein, have been accused of commission of parallel banking and committing fraud with consumers and account holders which fact has been disowned by guarantors--Question of time barred investigation has neither been raised before trial Court nor before High Court--This question has been raised for first time before this Court, thus, we are unable to take up this matter for first time--As accused are involved in fraud and have shaken confidence of account holders and at this stage on basis of collected material, we are of prima-facie view that it cannot be said that they are not linked with commission of offence with which they have been charged, hence, they are not entitled to concession of bail, however; after recording of some evidence they may file bail application on fresh grounds if any--Contention of Kh. Ansar Ahmed, Advocate that role of appellants is not different than those who have been enlarged on bail by Court is concerned, that is also devoid of any force--Their role is different and case to their extent requires further inquiry--There is no similarity between allegation levelled against appellants and released accused, therefore, principle of rule of consistency cannot be attracted to case of appellants, herein--Challan has been filed and Ehtesab Court has been closed due to general instructions of Azad Jammu Kashmir High Court--For non-recording of evidence, Ehtesab Court cannot be blamed--Filing of application for bail before High Court in these circumstances was not justified which has rightly been returned by High Court for presentation to proper Court--This order is not ever otherwise appealable and does not suffer from legal infirmity--Appeals were dismissed. JUDGMENT…
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