Pirzada BASHIR AHMAD SHAH vs THE STATE
This bail application arose from a criminal case registered against the petitioner, a former Chairman of the District Zakat Committee, under sections 408, 468, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, for allegedly misappropriating salary funds. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's involvement in the alleged misappropriation required further inquiry, and whether bail could be withheld as punishment or solely because government funds were involved. The Peshawar High Court held that the question of whether the drawn amount was handed over to the petitioner, and whether the cheque was issued in violation of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance 1980, required further inquiry. The Court ruled that the large amount involved or the involvement of government funds are not sole grounds to refuse bail, and that bail cannot be withheld as punishment. Applying the rule of consistency as co-accused had been bailed, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment before the conclusion of a trial?
- Is the involvement of a large amount of government funds, by itself, a sufficient ground to refuse bail?
- Does the release of co-accused on bail entitle a similarly placed accused to bail under the rule of consistency?
- Section 408, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 477-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Zakat and Ushr Ordinance 1980
' TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.--- Having been involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No,4, dated 7-12- 1998 under sections 408/468/477-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C. Act Police Station A.C.E. Tank, the accused-petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, N.-W.F.P. But his application was dismissed vide order, dated 30-5-2001. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. The petitioner stands charged for misappropriating a sum of Rs,2,92,200 under the head of salaries from December, 1995 to June. 1999 while he was Chairman, District Zakat Committee, Tank.
3. I have heard Messrs Dost Muhammad Khan and Fida Gul Khan. Advocates representing the petitioner and Mr. Tariq Javed. Deputy Advocate-General representing the State and perused the record.
4. The accused-petitioner admittedly remained Chairman. District Zakat Committee. Tank from 1994 to 1996 during this period cheque for the salaries of Secretaries was allegedly issued by the petitioner. But the said cheque was signed by Azam Khan, Accountant. Also and the amount was drawn by one Siddiquc, the Group Secretary. The question as to whether said Siddique handed over the amount of the cheque to the accused-petitioner needs further inquiry. Another question which needs further inquiry is as to whether the cheque for salaries was issued in violation of Zakat Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance No,XVIII of 1980) or not.
5. No doubt the amount involved is sufficiently large but this fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail particularly when the investigation of the case is not complete and the commencement of trial is likely to take considerable time as it happens in such-like cases. It would serve no useful purpose if the petitioner is kept behind the bars for indefinite period because as a rule bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
6. Similarly bail cannot be withheld only for the reason that the Government funds were involved as the same would not be ground by itself for refusal of bail.
7. Co-accused Azam Khan, Accountant and Abdur Rauf. Secretary, District Zakat Committee. Tank have already been released On bail, therefore, the accused-petitioner also deserves the concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency.
' For the reasons stated above 1 admit the accused-petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. Anti-Corruption N.-W.F.P. Who shall ensure that the sureties are reliable and men of means.
Cited by 4 cases
- Syed ZULQARNAIN SHAH Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 112
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 603
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 2003 P Cr. L J 175
- JAMAL NASIR BAIG vs THE STATE 2002 YLR 1771