Syed MAQSOOM HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Syed Maqsoom Hussain Shah seeking release in F.I.R. No. 171 dated 29-5-2004 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with non-prohibitory offences involving fraud and cheating regarding a plot transaction. The Lahore High Court held that although the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief of bail as he allegedly deprived an innocent person of his lifelong savings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within three months. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when grave allegations of financial fraud involving substantial sums are established prima facie.
- Is an accused automatically entitled to post-arrest bail merely because the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an accused involved in financial fraud and depriving a citizen of lifelong savings deserve discretionary relief of bail?
- Can the High Court direct the trial court to conclude a criminal trial within a specified timeframe while dismissing a bail petition?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Syed Maqsoom Hussain Shah through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,171 dated 29-5-2004 under sections 420/ 468/471/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad.
2. The prosecution case as narrated by the complainant Abdul Wahid is that the petitioner along with 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 had 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 F.I.R.; the petitioner neither sold said plot nor received any amount; he is only signatory of the agreement to sell; no offence is made out from the contents of the F.I.R.; 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 along with 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.
Cited by 3 cases
- AAMIR SHEIKH vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2136
- NOOR ALI SHAH vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, (PAKISTAN) KARACHI 2008 YLR 2217
- MUHAMMAD SIKANDAR MUGHAL and another vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 1473