Mian NOOR AHMAD and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions filed by petitioners accused of misappropriating public funds allocated for marriage grants through the creation of bogus documents. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being named in the F.I.R. and the serious nature of the allegations involving the public exchequer. The Court held that the opinion of the investigating police regarding the innocence of the accused is not binding upon the Court and may only be considered if supported by sound material. Emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the fact that the misappropriated public money had not been recovered, the Court determined that the case was exceptional. The key principle laid down is that where public funds are misappropriated, the bail matter will not be favorably considered so long as the public money remains unrecovered, even if paid under protest. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as being without merit.
- Is the opinion of the investigating police regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the Court during bail proceedings?
- Does the failure to recover misappropriated public funds constitute a ground for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted in cases involving the misappropriation of public money before the funds are recovered?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 218, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Heard.
2. By this order post-arrest bail petitions moved by Muhammad Abbas Ahsan son of Mian Hassan Ali, Caste Mughal, resident of Canada Colony, Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura, and Mian Noor Ahmad son of Muhammad Bux, caste Nanghi, resident of Chak No.26-RB, Tehsil Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura, petitioners, in the cases bearing F.I.R. No.14 dated 13-3-2003, registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 218 and 409, P.P.C. With Police Statipn City 'B' Division Sheikhupura and F.I.R. No.6 dated 20-1-2003 under sections 420, 468, 471, 218, 409, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Safdarabad District Sheikhupura, are being disposed of together as almost the facts and circumstances are the same.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they misappropriated the huge public money from the head of marriage grant by preparing bogus documents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and during investigation both were found innocent and that the petitioners never remained involved in any such case.
' On the other hand learned State counsel opposed these petitions for bail and submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. And that the offence is serious in nature, therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
5. It is obvious that the opinion of the Investigating Police is not binding on the Court and it may be taken into consideration if it is based upon any sound material. Had there been any truth in the fact of innocence the petitioners could not be named in the F.I.R., the public exchequer is yet to be recovered, therefore, it is an exceptional case and so long as the public money is not paid even under protest, the bail matter would not be taken into consideration.
' These petitions being without merits are hereby dismissed.