Syed MAQSOOM HUSSAIN SHAH vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Syed Maqsoom Hussain Shah, who is charged under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with FIR No. 171. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and his co-accused defrauded the complainant of Rs. 600,000 by misrepresenting the ownership of a plot of land and utilizing forged documents. The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of innocence, lack of specific timing in the FIR, and the contention that he was merely a signatory to the agreement. The Court examined the record and noted that the petitioner and his co-accused had deprived the complainant of a significant sum of money through fraudulent means. Although the Court acknowledged that the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provisions, it held that the petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief due to the nature of the fraud committed against the complainant's life-long earnings. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
- Does the fact that charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can a court deny discretionary relief in bail matters even if the offences are non-prohibitory?
- Is the gravity of the financial loss caused to a complainant a relevant factor in considering a bail application?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Syed Maqsoom Hussain Shah through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case FIR No. 171 dated 29.5.2004 under Sections 420/468/471/34 PPC registered with Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad.
2. The prosecution case as narrated by the complainant Abdul Wahid is that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused committed fraud with him in a deal of plot and deprived him of Rs.
6,00,000/- by preparing forged documents. He shown a plot and the deal was done for Rs.
6,00,000/- The petitioner mentioned the location of the plot in Tarlai Khurd and when they collected building material, for the purpose of construction, it transpired that this plot stands in the name of another person.
3. It is contended by the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that he is close relative to his co-accused; there is no mentioning of time and date of occurrence in the FIR; the petitioner neither sold said plot nor received any amount; he is only signatury of the agreement to sell; no offence is made out from the contents of the FIR; it is a case of further inquiry, he is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
4. Conversely, the Learned counsel for the State opposed the instant petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused Fayyaz Hussain Shah (close relative of the petitioner) deprived the complainant from Rs. 6,00,000/- by showing him a plot which was not owned and possessed by his co-accused and committed fraud with the complainant. Although, the offences for which the petitioner is being charged do not fall under the prohibitory clause but as the petitioner has deprived an innocent person from his life long earning, therefore, he does not deserve for any discretionary relief.
7. It is informed that Challan has been submitted in the Court against the petitioner. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within three months.