BASHIR UD DIN AND Another vs THE STATE
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the appellants in limine. The appellants, serving as Assistant Manager and Clerk respectively in an insurance company, were charged along with another person for the embezzlement of nearly Rs. 5,00,000 belonging to the company. Their bail applications were earlier dismissed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Upon granting leave to appeal to consider the question of entitlement to bail, the Supreme Court noted that bail had been granted to the appellants previously and no complaints had been made against them since, and the State counsel conceded to the confirmation of bail. The Supreme Court held that in the circumstances of the case, the bail granted to the appellants should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where bail has been granted during the pendency of proceedings and no misuse of concession or further complaints are reported, and the State concedes, the bail may be confirmed.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to confirmation of bail when no complaints have been made against them since the grant of bail?
- Can bail granted during the pendency of criminal proceedings be confirmed upon concession by the State?
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 1st December 1971., in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2713/13 of 1971. By this order, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissed the bail application of the appellants in limine.
2. Appellant No. 1 was Assistant Manager in the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company, Rawalpindi. Appellant No. 2 is his brother and is a Clerk in the Accounts Section in the same office.
3. They were charged along with one Ghulam Sayedain, an Account Assistant, for embezzlement of nearly Rs. 5,00,000 belonging to the above Insurance Company. The appellants applied for bail and their bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi on the 10th November 1971.
4. Thereafter, the appellants moved an application for bail in the Lahore High Court and their bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2713/8 of 1971), was dismissed in limine on the 1st December 1971. The appellants applied to this Court for leave to appeal and leave was granted to them to consider the question whether the appellants are entitled to bail.
5. Mr. Saeed Hassan, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the bail was granted to the appellants in 1971 and since then nothing has been, complained against the appellants arid, therefore, it is a fit case in which the tail should be confirmed.
6. Mr. Waheeduddin Virk, learned counsel for the State, stated that it is not known what has happened to the case and whether the case pending against the appellants has finished or not. He also concedes that in the circumstances of the present case, the bail granted to the appellants may be confirmed. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we con--firm the bail granted to the appellant to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi.
Cited by 1 case
- UMAR DIN LODHI vs THE STATE 2002 YLR 2764