PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 267
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 4157-B of 2024, decided on 24.7.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
""" -دفعه 497-- تعزیراتِ پاکستان، (XLV از 1860)، دفعات 420/468/471-- قانونِ شہادت آرڈر، (10 از 1984)، آرٹیکل 64-- جعلی رسیداتِ ادائیگی-- رپورٹ از پنجاب فرانزک سائنس ایجنسی-- بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت-- درخواستِ خارج-- درخواست گزار، معاہدے سے مستفید ہونے کے باوجود، مبلغ 1,58,00,000/- روپے ادا کرنے میں ناکام رہا اور دیوانی دعویٰ دائر کرنے پر کارروائی کی-- دعویٰ جعلی رسیداتِ ادائیگی کی بنیاد پر دائر کیا گیا ہے-- مبینہ رسیداتِ ادائیگی انگوٹھے کے نشانات کے تجزیہ کے لیے پنجاب فرانزک سائنس ایجنسی کو بھیجی گئیں، جو اس رائے کے ساتھ واپس موصول ہوئیں کہ انگوٹھے کے نشانات مدعی کے نہیں ہیں-- قانونِ شہادت آرڈر، 1984 کا آرٹیکل 64، فرانزک ثبوت کی بنیاد پر سزا قانونی ہو سکتی ہے-- درخواست گزار ضمانت پر رہا ہونے کا حقدار نہیں ہے۔ """
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420/468/471-- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, (10 of 1984), Art. 64--Forged receipts of payments--Report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency--Post arrest bail--Dismissal of--Petitioner being beneficiary of agreement, failed to pay an amount of Rs.1,58,00,000/- and proceeded to file civil suit--Suit has been filed on the basis of forged receipts of payments--Alleged receipts of payments were sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency for analysis of thumb impressions which was returned with an opinion that the thumb impressions do not belong to the complainant--Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the conviction on the basis of forensic evidence may be lawful--Petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. [Para 3] A & B
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
دفعہ 497- کوئی امتناعی شق نہیں- اگرچہ جرائم ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 497 کی امتناعی شق میں نہیں آتے، لیکن یہ کوئی قاعدہ نہیں ہے کہ ایسے جرائم میں جو اس زمرے میں نہیں آتے، ملزم کو ہر صورت میں ضمانت پر رہا کرنا حق ہے۔
----S. 497--No prohibitory clause--Though the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. but it is not a rule of thumb to grant bail to accused in every situation in offences not falling within such category as a matter of right. [Para 3] C
2002 SCMR 442; 2022 SCMR 1304; 2022 SCMR 216; 2023 PCr.LJ Note 60; 2022 PCr.LJ Note 71; 2020 SCMR 2053 ref.
Mr. Nadeem Ahmad Tarar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Malik Mudassir Ali, DPG for State.
Khawaja Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 24.7.2024.
Order
Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 359 dated 03.07.2023 registered under Sections 420,468,471, PPC at Police Station Saddar, Darya Khan, District Bhakkar.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioner being beneficiary of agreement dated 18.05.2022 failed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,58,00,000/- and proceeded to file civil suit on 17.12.2022. The complainant though was in wait of payment but on coming to know that the the suit suit has been filed on the basis of forged receipts of payments trigged criminal process on 03.07.2023 through registration of instant FIR and during investigation, the alleged receipts of payments were sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency for analysis of thumb impressions of complainant which was returned with an opinion that the thumb impressions do not belong to the complainant. Therefore by all means, a forensic evidence is against the petitioner and according to Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the conviction on the basis of forensic evidence may be lawful. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that being Court of ultimate jurisdiction it is the civil Court which shall ultimately decide the issue of payment. Such argument cannot be given space in the light of forensic evidence at this stage of the proceedings. The other ground urged was falling of offences in non-prohibitory clause. Though the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. but it is not a rule of thumb to grant bail to accused in every situation in offences not falling within such category as a matter of right if the case falls in exceptions. Reliance in this respect is placed on case reported as “Muhammad Siddique versus Imtiaz Begum and 2 others” (2002 SCMR 442). Similar expressions are in cases reported as “Rashad Imran versus The State and another” (2022 SCMR 1304); “Umer Khan versus The State and another” (2022 SCMR 216); “Allah Yar and 4 others versus The State and another” (2023 PCr.LJ Note 60); “Irfan Sarwar versus The State” (2022 PCr.LJ Note 71). From the material evaluated tentatively, no ‘reasonable grounds’ as contemplated in Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. and explained in case reported as “Nehal vs. The State and another” (2020 SCMR 2053) are available to extend concession of bail. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. This petition is dismissed.
(K.Q.B.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments