IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE AT
KARACHI CENTRAL
B.B.A. No. 525/12
Muhammad Hanif …………………..……… APPLICANT
VERSUS
The
STATE
………………………………………. RESPONDENT
WRITTEN
ARGUEMENTS
1.
That
the Applicant is quite innocent and
story in this case is false and
fabricated by the complainant on instance of police, especially I.O. who is
relative of main co-accused and there is apprehension to be arrested by the
said police for the ulterior motives.
Relied
upon:
S.498---Arrest
for ulterior motives such as
humiliation and unjustified harassment is a valid consideration for the grant
of pre-arrest bail.
1993 P. Cr. L. J 446.
2.
That
the Applicant belongs to respectable family this case has been made mala fidely
for just to harass and humiliate in eyes of the society, as there is abnormal delay of more than 8 months in lodging the
FIR or taking recourse to law was
not explained.
Relied
upon:
S.498---Abnormal delay of more than five months in taking recourse to law
was not explained---Mere mentioning of
the name of accused in F.I.R., held would not justify rejection of
anticipatory bail without considering thee other circumstances of the case---
Interim bail earlier granted was confirmed in circumstances. 1990 P.Cr.L.J 973.
3.
That
the alleged cheque was issued to a person Muhammad Ali, the said cheque was
deposited in account of Muhammad Ali, the complainant is Muhammad Ali, and
accused is Muhammad Ali, it is yet to be determined by Trial Court to whom the
said cheque was really issued, the same would be determined at the time of
trial not at bail stage. The situation is doubtful and it is a fit case of
further inquiry.
Relied
upon:
S.498/497 (2)---Case of accused, in
circumstances had become one of further inquiry within the meaning of
subsection (2) of S.497 Cr.P.C---interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused,
was confirmed accordingly.
2007MLD 1234.
S.498---Grant of bail---Benefit of
doubt---Benefit of every doubt even at bail stage was to be given to the
accused. The case of petitioner, thus is certainly opened to further inquiry
into his guilt and is covered under the subsection (2) of S.497 Cr.P.C. Interim
pre-arrest bail confirmed.
2005 MLD 535
4.
That
the allegation leveled in the FIR is
Civil nature case, and main accused in whose account the alleged Cheque has
been deposited and the same was cashed and withdrawn the said amount, neither
has been arrested yet and nor he approached for pre-arrest bail, due to
friendly relations with I.O; and delay
of more than 8 months in lodging the FIR, in the circumstances this case has
become further inquiry.
As Held:
S.498/497 (2)---Case of accused, in
circumstances had become one of further inquiry within the meaning of
subsection (2) of S.497 Cr.P.C---interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused,
was confirmed accordingly.
2007MLD 1234.
5.
That
from perusal of the contents of FIR it is very clear that the complainant has
concocted a story, and no prima facie case is made out under Section 420/416/414
PPC which has been registered under the instructions of police specially I.O
without taking into consideration and applying his mind on the contents of the complaint,
the other Co-accused is relative of I.O.
6.
That
the present crime is not punishable with 10 years or R.I or more, hence
it does no fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.PC.
Held:
S.497/498---Bail---Grant
of bail in a case where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause
is a rule while its refusal should be an exception---Basic rule is bail and not
jail.
1993 P. Cr. L. J 446 vide [p. 451] G.
Held:
S.498---Though
the offence was not bailable yet High Court cannot ignore the facts that the
offence does not fall prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C. and in absence of
exceptional circumstances pre-arrest bail could
even be claimed as of right---Accused had also joined the investigation and
as such he was no more required for the
purpose of investigation---Bial was confirmed.
PLJ
2009 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1310.
S.497/498---Bail---Principles—Courts
in cases, where offence falls within non-prohibitory clause S.497 Cr.PC---
consider favourably by granting bail as a rule but decline to do so in
exceptional cases.
2009
SCMR 1488.
7.
That
investigation has been completed, Challan has been submitted and applicant no
more required for the purpose of investigation.
Held:
Accused
had also joined the investigation and as such he was no more required for the purpose of investigation---Bial was
confirmed.
PLJ
2009 Cr. C. (Lahore) 1310.
8.
That
the applicant is not a previous convicted nor a hardened criminal and
neither he will temper with P.Ws nor he will abscond and he will join the
prosecution for investigation, as he is permanent resident of Karachi.
9.
That
if the accused/applicant is not released on bail he will not be able to defend him properly and he shall be suffered irreparable
loss which cannot be measured monetarily and will be humiliated in the eyes of the society.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to confirm interim bail before
arrest under the fact and circumstances mentioned above.
Prayed accordingly in the
interest of Justice.
Karachi.
Dated: 09/05/12.
S M ZUBAIR
Advocate
for the Applicant
No comments:
Post a Comment