Mohsan Mushtaq Butt vs Muhammad Yousaf Etc.
This petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was involved in financial misappropriation through the encashment of cheques issued by the petitioner's son, who was employed at the petitioner's factory. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to justify the cancellation of the bail already granted to the respondent. Upon review, the Court found no evidence connecting the respondent to the alleged forgery or misappropriation, noting that the investigation failed to link the respondent to the signatures on the back of the cheques. The Court held that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail are distinct, and that cancellation requires strong and exceptional grounds, analogous to the principles applied in appeals against acquittal. Finding no such grounds, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the discretionary order of the lower court.
- What is the legal standard for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
- Does the mere allegation of misappropriation by a relative constitute sufficient grounds to cancel bail for an accused not directly linked to the forgery?
- Are the considerations for granting bail the same as those for cancelling bail?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 408, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A.I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A.II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M.A. ZAFAR, J. - Mohsan Mushtaq, the petitioner who is complainant of case F.I.R. No. 438/08, dated 11.9.2008 for offence under Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, PPC registered with Police Station Motra, District Sialkot has filed this petition under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Muhammad Yousaf respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska vide order dated 29.11.2008.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he presented cheques, before Manager ABL Main Branch Sialkot for payment to him. The said cheques were allegedly issued of exaggerated amount by the petitioner's son who was employed in the Silver Star Factory as receiving Incharge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the cheques issued by the petitioner's son in the name of the different parties who used to supply goods to the company were encashed by the petitioner from the bank.
4. The learned DPG also supports the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that there is no evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of offence and the petitioner being father of Altaf against whom there are main allegations he has been involved in this case and the respondent was abducted by the hired assassin of the company and got the sale-deed executed from him in favour of Silver Star Company and they also took her snaps entering the factory. He further submits that on the application of the petitioner moved by the learned Justice of Peace a case under Sections 365, 337-A.I, 337-A.II, PPC was also registered with Police Station City Daska vide F.I.R. No. 90/2009, dated 29.1.2009.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have noticed that there is no allegation against the respondent that he forged the signatures or figures of the cheque in any manner whatsoever. The only allegation against him is that he used to collect amount of the cheque issued by his son on behalf of the company in the name of different persons by signing on the back of the cheques. After going through the police file I have noticed that there are copies of some cheques and on the back of said cheques the signature in whose name the same was issued but the petitioner being illiterate only thumb mark and the police during the investigation has not either got compared his signatures with the signature affixed on the back of the cheques while receiving the amount. At present there is no evidence at-all to connect the respondent with the commission of offence and mere fact that his son mis-appropriated a huge amount by issuing cheques on behalf of the company without tempering its figures would hardly constitute an offence, as far as present respondent is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that after withdrawal, of amount from the bank by issuing a cheque of exaggerated amount, petitioner son Altaf has been paying the exact amount to a person in whose name he used to issue the cheque. There is no cavil with the proposition that once the concession of bail is extended to the accused involved in a criminal case strong and exceptional ground has to be made out for the cancellation of bail because the consideration for the grant of bail and those for cancellation of bail are different and they are para meterial with the principle of interfering in appeal against- acquittal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no good ground to interfere in a discretionary order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot granting bail to respondent, therefore, the application is dismissed.