Syed KAMAL SHAH vs STATE and another
This matter concerns two petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in connection with FIRs registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the bail petitions, recalling the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court held that while bail is generally the rule and rejection the exception for offences outside the prohibitory clause, this is a discretionary concession that is not warranted when the accused is directly nominated in cases involving financial crimes that negatively impact public trust and economic stability. The Court emphasized that bail should be refused where there is a likelihood of absconsion, tampering with evidence, or repetition of the offence. The principle laid down is that the absence of a statutory prohibition against bail does not grant an automatic right to relief, especially when the gravity of the offence and societal impact necessitate a stricter judicial approach.
- Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitle an accused to an automatic grant of bail?
- Can bail be refused in cases involving financial crimes even if the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- What are the exceptional circumstances that justify the refusal of bail for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this single order, I intend to dispose of this and the connected Cr.Misc.No. 653-A12016 titled "Syed Kamal Shah vs. The State & another" as in both these petitions though FIRs are different but section of law is one and the same.
2. The petitioner has moved this and the connected bail before arrest application for his pre-arrest bail in cases FIR No. 149 dated 20.06.2016 and FIR No. 686 dated 08.06.2016, both under Section 489F, PPC by Police Station City Mansehra, and this Court vide orders dated 24.08.2016 had granted him ad-interim pre-arrest bail in both the cases.
2.Perusal of the record would reveal that not only the accused-petitioner has directly been nominated in the FIRs but the offence relates to financial crime which is rampant in the society and public is loosing their trust with hard earned money.
3. Not only because the accused-petitioner had directly been nominated in the FIRs for commission of the offence but, also keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Lahore High Court in the case of "Abdul Sattar vs. The State" reported as 2011 YLR 863 where it has been held that although the offence under Section 489-F, PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. where grant of bail is a rule and rejection thereof is an exception but the accused- petitioner does not deserve lenient treatment.
4. Moreover, if the people are simply allowed concession, such as bail, on the mere ground of absence of prohibition of Section 497, Cr.P.C. while the circumstances show the gravity of the matter not only for an individual but also spoiling the economic and social life of his whole family, this may tend to perpetuate the commission of offences of the same nature. The grant of bail being a discretionary concession would, of course, not be warranted in such situation.
5.While considering the principle of law enunciated by the apex Court in the case of "Subhan Khan vs. The State" 2002 SCM R 1997 where it has been held that "where extra ordinary and exceptional circumstances, palpable on record, when there was likelihood of absconsion, apprehension of tempering with the prosecution .evidence by accused, danger, of repetition of the offence if the accused is enlarged on bail and where the accused was a previous convict, hardened criminal then, bail shall not be granted", therefore, I see no merits in this and the connected bail before applications, which are hereby dismissed and the previous orders of this Court dated 24.08.2016 are hereby recalled.