2018 PCrLJN 28 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AYOOB
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392 ---Robbery---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Ulterior motive and mala fide intention---Complainant had alleged that accused-petitioners duly armed alighted from their motor bike and robbed him of his motor cycle, Rs. 5,000 and his mobile phone---Mala fide had to be shown on the part of either the complainant or the police in case of pre-arrest bail---Record showed that complainant filed the FIR against the accused-petitioners after they filed civil suit against him---Said factor, prima facie, indicated that FIR had been lodged for mala fide reasons in order to pressurize the accused-petitioners to withdraw or settle the civil suit---Complainant did not make any effort to proceed with the completion of the trial of the accused-petitioners---Sole purpose of the complainant seemed to be to unnecessarily linger the trial which conduct itself appeared to be prima facie "mala fide"---Facts and circumstances of the case showed that robbery was not committed on the highway as alleged, and maximum imprisonment could be extended for ten years and shall not be less than three years, however, even in such circumstances, the minimum period of not less than three years would be considered while passing sentence, if the accused was convicted under S. 392 , P.P.C.---If the sentence carried a range from five years to fifteen years imprisonment, for the purpose of bail, the lower end of the range would be considered, which in the case of S. 392 , P.P.C. was three years---Record showed that pre-arrest bail was granted two years ago and accused-petitioners had been regularly attending the trial proceedings during the said period---Trial had been halted largely on account of complainant's conduct---Recalling the interim pre-arrest bail, in circumstances, would serve no useful purpose but would abuse the process of law---Accused-petitioners were not to be prejudiced/made to suffer due to no fault of their own especially, when they were regularly attending the trial proceedings---Trial would not likely to proceed further in the near future---Facts and circumstances of the case suggested that accused-petitioners were not at fault, hence pre-arrest bail was confirmed.
---
2010 PCrLJ 545 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR alias HAKIM ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392 ---Robbery---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Inordinate delay of 13 days, in the filing of F.I.R., had not been satisfactorily explained---History of enmity existed between the complainant and accused party---Previously an F.I.R. was lodged against accused party, by the complainant party on virtually identical facts, which after Police investigation was disposed of as cancelled, which prima facie had indicated that. there was mala fide intent and an attempt to involve accused in criminal proceedings as a result of long standing enmity between the two parties---Police while investigating the matter, ought to have taken into consideration the fact that according to their own inspection of the place of incident there did not appear to, be any visible signs at all of the alleged incident, but Police had not done so---Since there appeared to be prima facie mala fide, accused had made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail---Pre-arrest bail earlier granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
----
2010 YLR 1512 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : GHULAM AKBAR
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392 ---Robbery---Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Apart from the other grounds urged by counsel for accused, delay of one and a half month in registration of the F.I. R., was sufficient which had not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution---Interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
----
2008 YLR 2833 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ILYAS
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392 ---Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Complainant got registered case against accused with the allegation that accused persons snatched the leased vehicle which had been repossessed by them and that they also deprived complainant of Rs.10,000 and cell phone---Contention of accused persons was that a bona fide dispute existed touching the terms and conditions of lease purchase agreement between the lessee and the Bank which they resolved amicably---Accused persons also contended that it was not permissible under the law to authorize complainant who was a private person to repossess leased vehicle on any ground---Leased vehicle was in possession of accused when complainant repossessed or intended to repossess the same on account of default in payment of instalments---Bank adopted a self-styled procedure by engaging private contractors for implementation of contract and agreement with the customers instead of having recourse to the legal remedies before the legal forums---Mens rea which was the essence of each and every offence, was missing in. the case---Only grievance of the Bank against the customer was that he failed to pay the instalments on due date---Such was not the criminal act or an offence on the part of the customer---Outstanding instalments of the leased vehicle was a civil liability---Accused persons established their bona fide by making payment of outstanding dues and Bank had already issued clearance certificate---Counsel for the complainant argued that accused persons also snatched cell phone and Rs.10,000 from the complainant while resisting the process of re-possession of leased vehicle---In view of mode and manner of incident given in F.I.R. the allegation with regard to snatching of cell phone and Rs.10,000 from the complainant, was open to further inquiry---Allegations against accused persons being tainted with mala fide, pre-arrest bail already granted to accused persons, was confirmed, in circumstances.
----
2008 PLD 215 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMED
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392 /34---Pre-arrest and after arrest bail, grant of---Recovery had not been made from the exclusive possession of accused persons; their names did not appear in the F.I.R.---Involvement of accused persons in the case was on account of co-accused and alleged confession by some of them which in law was not admissible---Case, in circumstances required further inquiry---Pre-arrest bail granted to one of accused persons was confirmed and bail before a Rafiq Khan Advocate High Court LLM rrest was granted to other accused
0 Comments