| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5295 2025 SLD 5295 = 2025 PCRLJ 1313 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Constitution Petitions Nos. D-1296, D-1297, D-1298 and D-1299 of 2023, decided on 19th November, 2024.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Soomro, ADPGA and Bahawaluddin Shaikh, Special Prosecutor for NAB/State. Zubair Ahmed Rajput and Javed Ahmed Soomro, Advocates for the private
Respondents/accused.
Constitution Petitions Nos. D-1296, D-1297, D-1298 and D-1299 of 2023, decided on 19th November, 2024.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Soomro, ADPGA and Bahawaluddin Shaikh, Special Prosecutor for NAB/State. Zubair Ahmed Rajput and Javed Ahmed Soomro, Advocates for the private
Respondents/accused.
The STATE thorugh Chairman NAB---Petitioners
VERSUS
MUNEER AHMED SANGHROO and another---Respondents
Law: Governor-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497,497(5),498
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: XVIII,9(a)(iii),9(a)(iv),9(a)(xii)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 9(a)(iii) (iv)(xii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition--Corruption and corrupt practices---Petition for cancellation of bail, dismissal of--Allegations against the respondents were that they caused loss of huge amount to the government exchequer due to their negligence---At this stage, there was lack of evidence to demonstrate the acquisition of any monetary benefits by the accused or the party allegedly benefitting from the misuse of authority---As such, the case against the accused/respondents required further enquiry--Despite the serious nature of the charges, it was undisputed that the accused had complied with the conditions of their bail, and were attending every Court hearing without misuse of the concession granted to them---Mere gravity of the offence does not, in itself, justify the deprivation of personal liberty, particularly for an indefinite period---Object of bail is to secure the appearance of an accused at his trial by a reasonable amount for bail, it is neither punitive nor preventive, and therefore, deprivation of liberty must be considered as punishment, unless it might be required to ensure the presence of the accused during trial--- Prosecution could not point out from the record as to whether the respondents had violated any of the conditions, which could become the basis for cancellation of bail granted to them---Petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqvi Butt 1976 SCMR 360 and Samiullah v. Laiq Zada 2020 SCMR 1115 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Scope---Every accused will be presumed to be the blue-eyed boy of the law until and unless he may be found guilty of the alleged charge---Law cannot be stretched in favour of the prosecution, particularly at the bail stage---Mere huge quantity or gravity of the offence may not disentitle the applicant from concession of bail as bail cannot be withheld as an advanced punishment and applicant cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite…