IJAZ AKHTAR vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner, who faced charges under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously been denied bail by the Sessions Court and the High Court, and a prior petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed with directions to expedite the trial. The core legal question was whether bail should be denied solely due to the large amount of money involved in the alleged embezzlement or unsubstantiated fears of evidence tampering. The Supreme Court held that the magnitude of the amount involved, while significant, does not by itself constitute sufficient grounds for refusing bail. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in the absence of concrete evidence supporting allegations of potential tampering with prosecution evidence, bail cannot be denied on such speculative grounds. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, converted it into an appeal, and admitted the petitioner to bail, noting that the State retains the remedy of seeking cancellation of bail if the petitioner abuses the liberty granted.
- Does the large amount of money involved in an alleged offence constitute sufficient grounds for refusing bail?
- Can bail be denied based on unsubstantiated allegations that an accused might tamper with evidence?
- What is the appropriate remedy for the State if an accused person abuses the bail granted to them?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.-This petition for leave has been 6!Ed against an order of the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court by which the learned Chief Justice rejected the petitioner's application for bail.
2. The charges against the petitioner are under section 419/420/468/471/409, P. P. C. And on his arrest a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 was recovered from too petitioner. The petitioner had sought bail in the Sessions Court but his application was rejected on 6-10-3976 on the ground that the amount involved was very large. The petitioner then challenged this order of 6-10-1976 in the Lahore High Court, but as this application was dismissed on 2?-10-1976, he bad filed a petition for leave in this Court which was dismissed on 7-2-1977 with the observation that the trial of the petitioner, should he expedited and that he could repeat his application after come evidence bed been recorded.
3. The petitioner's trial has not vet commenced and he applied for bail for the second tine in the Lahore High Court sometime after the dismissal of his petition for leave. This second bail application too was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave.
4. Mr. Zafar Mahmood presses for bail on the ground that the charges against the petitioner are not punishable with transportation for life. That is correct. On the ether hand Mr. K. M. Iqbal opposes bail on the ground that the charge the petitioner is of a grave nature because the amount embezzled was huge No doubt the amount involved is large but by itself this would be no ground for refusing bail. Mr. K. M. Iqbal then submitted that the petitioner might tamper with the evidence if enlarged on bail. If the' petitioner abuses the bail granted to him, the State can prosecute its remedies in the Sessions Court but at this stage in the absence of evidence in support of this allegation, we cannot' refuse bail, and them is no such evidence.
5. We, therefore, admit the petition, convert it to an appeal and allow it. Bail in the sum of Ra. 20,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi.
Cited by 23 cases
- ABID WALI KHOSO and others vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) 2018 P Cr. L J 1607
- MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL RIFFAT Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 70
- MUHAMMAD FARID ALAM Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 43
- SIKANDER ALI QURESHI vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU 2017 P Cr. L J 269
- ABDUL SATTAR and another vs The STATE PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 25, 2016 P Cr. L J 396
- MOHAE-UD-DIN vs The STATE through Prosecutor-General Balochistan 2015 P Cr. L J 621
- Police Constable ABDUL RAHIM Versus State 2016 PCrLJN 39
- MUHAMMAD HANIF S. KALIAand others vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1822
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM QURESHI vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2578
- UMAR DIN LODHI vs THE STATE 2002 YLR 2764
- MUBARIK SHAH vs THE STATE 1997 P Cr. L J 2083
- AMJAD KHAN vs THE STATE 1996 P Cr. L J 1469
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE 1992 MLD 880
- HASHMAT ALI alias RUSTAM ALI vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 558
- TARIQ HUSSAIN FAROOQUI AND 2 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 1983 PLD Azad I & K 38
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE 1983 P Cr. L J 89
- Syed SAIFUDDIN SHAH vs THE STATE 1982 P Cr. L J 792
- ABDUL RASHID KHAN vs THE STATE----Opponent 1981 P Cr. L J 1211
- Agha TALAT MAHMOOD vs THE STATE 1983 P Cr. LJ 2144
- JAWAID AKHTAR BUTT vs THE STATE- 1981 P Cr. L J 379
- MUKHTIAR ALI vs THE STATE---Opponent 1979 P Cr. L J 108
- Ch. MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE 1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 83
- MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE--- 1981 P Cr. L J 1210