Pakistan Case Law
2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 232, 2021 SCMR 729

Sami Ullah vs The State

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 232, 2021 SCMR 729
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No. 111 of 2021
Date2021-03-03
Judge(s)Amin-Ud-Din Khan, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal petition arises from the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court to the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR involving the recovery of forged currency notes. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court observed that the FIR contents suggested the potential applicability of Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Section 489-B, as there was no immediate allegation of the petitioner using the counterfeit notes as genuine. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under the provisions of Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the furnishing of a bail bond. The principle established is that where the specific nature of the offence remains a matter for trial determination, the case may fall within the scope of further inquiry for bail purposes.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the recovery of forged currency without evidence of usage as genuine attract Section 489-B or Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the specific offence charged a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 489-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyfurther inquirycriminal petitionbail bond

ORDER

MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Petitioner has called in question order dated 29.01.2021 whereby bail was refused to him by the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in case FIR No. 968 dated 28.12.2020, offence under section 489-B, P .P.C., registered at P .S. Mattani, Peshawar .

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of State at length and perusal of available record with their assistance, it has been observed by us that as per contents of FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that at the time of his arrest, forged Pakistani currency notes of 1000 domination were recovered from his possession. Even from the contents of FIR, prima facie the provisions of section 489-C, P.P.C. are attracted in this case as there is no allegation against the petitioner of using as genuine forged or A counterfeit currency notes allegedly recovered from him. Nevertheless, it is for the learned trial Court to determine finally whether provisions of sections 489-B or 489-C, P.P.C. are attracted in this case, of course, after recording evidence. As of now, case against the petitioner calls for further enquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed.

Appellant Sami Ullah is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.