IMRAN ALAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Imran Alam, who was implicated in a case involving a fraudulent sugar sale transaction involving Phalia Sugar Mill. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure statute, and the investigation was substantially complete. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the recovery of the alleged proceeds had already been effected. Furthermore, the Court rejected the complainant's argument regarding the risk of abscondence or tampering with evidence based on the petitioner's residence in Karachi. The Court affirmed the principle that the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld in cases where further inquiry into guilt is required.
- Is the grant of bail considered the rule and refusal the exception in criminal cases?
- Does the fact that an accused is not named in the F.I.R. constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be refused solely on the apprehension that an accused might abscond because they reside in a different province?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' In the instant case F.I.R. Was lodged on the statement of Mian Muhammad Sarwar, General Manager Phalia Sugar Mill, in which .It was alleged that one Asad Hussain is dealer of Phalia Sugar Mill, that on 17-3-2001 so called Mr. Abdul Ghaffar made a deal of sugar sale on telephone amounting to Rs,24,80,000 and Numan representative of so called Abdul Ghaffar handed over the pay order of above mentioned amount on 18-3-2001. When the pay order was presented at Habib Bank Gujrat Branch on 19-3-2001, it was declared that the same was bogus and Habib Bank Chaklala Branch also confirmed that they had not issued such like document.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., that the recovery, if any, has already been effected, that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He submits that case of petitioner is covered by subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the grant of bail. However, learned counsel for the complainant submits that it was the petitioner who has commited this big fraud and this fraud has been committed against society. Petitioner belongs to Karachi and there is apprehension that he will abscond and would tamper with the evidence. He submits that though case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. But according to the judgment cited by him i,e, PLD 1997 SC 545, in such like cases bail should not be granted.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., recovery if any, has already been effected and offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Karachi is part of Pakistan and not outside the country. Moreover, reliance is placed on PLD 1995 SC 34 titled as Tariq Rashid v. The State in which Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has held that grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. After having gone A through the record and hearing the submissions, I am of the opinion that no offence has been committed against. The society. The alleged offence is against Phalia Sugar Mill. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (five lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.