CANTONMENT BOARD FAISAL CANTT., KARACHI and others CANTONENT
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Cantonment Board against an order of the Sindh High Court granting post-arrest bail to private respondents accused of criminal misappropriation, fraud, forgery, and corruption while employed as Cantonment Board officials. The core legal question is whether the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that no grounds are made out to interfere with the High Court's discretion, noting that the investigation was completed long ago, the accused had been on bail for over a year without abusing the concession, and no exceptional circumstances or perversity were shown. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with the High Court's discretionary grant of bail unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, in a perverse manner, or in violation of settled legal principles.
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail?
- Does the completion of investigation and prolonged enjoyment of bail without abuse constitute grounds against interfering with bail?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- In these identical petitions, petitioner-Cantonment Board seeks leave to appeal against Division Bench of the Sindh High Court order, dated 24-8-2004 admitting private respondents to bail in a case registered under the provisions of sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 109 and 34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. It is contended that the private respondents, during the course of their employment as Cashier, Accountant and Upper Division Clerks in the Cantonment Board during the period from 1-7-2001 to 16-4-2003, committed acts of criminal misappropriation by fraud and forgery in the funds of the Cantonment Board to the tune of Rs,76,73,988 and Rs,32,70,777 respectively.
3. On being asked as to the individual role of each of the respondents, learned counsel is completely unaware of the facts with regard to the role played by each of the accused in the commission of alleged acts of criminal misappropriation, fraud, forgery and using the forged documents as genuine. Investigation in the case has already taken a long period of time and the charge-sheet, though initially submitted before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Central-II, Karachi is presently pending before an Accountability Court. It is vehemently argued that the Division Bench of the High Court, while admitting the respondents to bail in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, acted in violation of the principle laid down by this Court in Imtiaz Ahmad v. State PLD 1997 SC 545.
4. After examining the impugned order of the High Court in the light of the allegations against the respondents and the fact that the investigation has been completed long ago coupled with the fact that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the respondents to custody, we are not inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court. Admittedly, the respondents have been availing of their right to bail for the last more than one year and there is no allegation whatsoever that they have abused the concession of bail extended to them. It is well-settled that this Court is reluctant in interfering with the exercise of discretion by the High Court unless it is shown that it was exercised arbitrarily, in a perverse manner or in contravention of the settled principles of law. No exceptional case having been made out, we are firmly of the opinion that there are no compelling circumstances for interference with the exercise of discretion by the High Court.
5. Consequently, no ground is made out for the grant of leave, which is refused and petitions are dismissed.