Summary: (Bail Allowed) Javed Iqbal was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. He had applied for bail before the Special Court established under the PECA, 2016, but his application was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed a bail application before the High Court, which granted him bail subject to certain conditions, including the deposit of Rs. 3.5 million in the trial court. The petitioner contended that the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million was not permissible under the law, as he denied the liability and the High Court had acknowledged that the matter could only be resolved during the trial. The petitioner argued that the imposition of such a condition was illegal and relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to support his case. The Deputy Attorney General representing the State acknowledged that imposing such a condition while granting bail was not legally permissible. However, he argued that the petitioner had admitted his liability, justifying the imposition of the condition. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and examining the relevant legal provisions and precedents, concluded that while granting bail, the court can require an accused to execute a bond or provide sureties, but it cannot impose any other conditions, such as depositing money. The court cited previous judgments to support its position and emphasized that bail should not be subjected to riders and conditions when a case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million imposed by the High Court. The order granting bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with one surety, was upheld.

Summary: (Bail Allowed) Javed Iqbal was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. He had applied for bail before the Special Court established under the PECA, 2016, but his application was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed a bail application before the High Court, which granted him bail subject to certain conditions, including the deposit of Rs. 3.5 million in the trial court. The petitioner contended that the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million was not permissible under the law, as he denied the liability and the High Court had acknowledged that the matter could only be resolved during the trial. The petitioner argued that the imposition of such a condition was illegal and relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to support his case. The Deputy Attorney General representing the State acknowledged that imposing such a condition while granting bail was not legally permissible. However, he argued that the petitioner had admitted his liability, justifying the imposition of the condition. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and examining the relevant legal provisions and precedents, concluded that while granting bail, the court can require an accused to execute a bond or provide sureties, but it cannot impose any other conditions, such as depositing money. The court cited previous judgments to support its position and emphasized that bail should not be subjected to riders and conditions when a case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million imposed by the High Court. The order granting bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with one surety, was upheld.

Summary: (Bail Allowed) Javed Iqbal was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. He had applied for bail before the Special Court established under the PECA, 2016, but his application was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed a bail application before the High Court, which granted him bail subject to certain conditions, including the deposit of Rs. 3.5 million in the trial court. The petitioner contended that the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million was not permissible under the law, as he denied the liability and the High Court had acknowledged that the matter could only be resolved during the trial. The petitioner argued that the imposition of such a condition was illegal and relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to support his case. The Deputy Attorney General representing the State acknowledged that imposing such a condition while granting bail was not legally permissible. However, he argued that the petitioner had admitted his liability, justifying the imposition of the condition. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and examining the relevant legal provisions and precedents, concluded that while granting bail, the court can require an accused to execute a bond or provide sureties, but it cannot impose any other conditions, such as depositing money. The court cited previous judgments to support its position and emphasized that bail should not be subjected to riders and conditions when a case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million imposed by the High Court. The order granting bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with one surety, was upheld.

Summary: (Bail Allowed) Javed Iqbal was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. He had applied for bail before the Special Court established under the PECA, 2016, but his application was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed a bail application before the High Court, which granted him bail subject to certain conditions, including the deposit of Rs. 3.5 million in the trial court. The petitioner contended that the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million was not permissible under the law, as he denied the liability and the High Court had acknowledged that the matter could only be resolved during the trial. The petitioner argued that the imposition of such a condition was illegal and relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to support his case. The Deputy Attorney General representing the State acknowledged that imposing such a condition while granting bail was not legally permissible. However, he argued that the petitioner had admitted his liability, justifying the imposition of the condition. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and examining the relevant legal provisions and precedents, concluded that while granting bail, the court can require an accused to execute a bond or provide sureties, but it cannot impose any other conditions, such as depositing money. The court cited previous judgments to support its position and emphasized that bail should not be subjected to riders and conditions when a case for bail has been made out. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the condition of depositing Rs. 3.5 million imposed by the High Court. The order granting bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with one surety, was upheld.

Summary: Bail Before Arrest---The case was registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Manawan, District Lahore, for defrauding a complainant in a property deal.The petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case due to connivance between the complainant and the local police. He argued that he had no involvement in the transaction, nor did he receive any consideration or act as a witness.The State, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was specifically named in the crime report and was a habitual offender with similar cases registered against him. The petitioner had also submitted a fake COVID-19 positive certificate to the High Court during a previous bail petition, raising doubts about his credibility.The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the record, observed that the petitioner was indeed one of the signatories on the document used to defraud the complainant. The Investigating Officer had also found sufficient evidence of the petitioner's involvement during the investigation.Considering the petitioner's conduct and his involvement in similar cases, the Court declined the prayer for pre-arrest bail. It emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and should be granted sparingly to protect innocent individuals from false charges. In light of the circumstances, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

Summary: Basic ingredients/elements constituting offence u/s 420 PPC are missing, hence, prosecution remained fail to prove charge u/s 420 PPC against the petitioners beyond shadow of doubt

Summary: [Principle relating to post-arrest bail in offences not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.] The Supreme Court analyzed the case and found that the courts below, including the Lahore High Court, did not exercise their discretion properly while declining bail to the petitioner under subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The courts viewed the case against the petitioner under subsection (2) of Section 497 CrPC, relying on incriminating material to connect him with the alleged offenses. However, the alleged offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of Section 497 CrPC, which means that granting bail in such cases is a rule, and refusal is an exception, as established in previous Supreme Court cases.The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of keeping an under-trial accused in detention is to ensure their attendance at trial or to protect society from any danger posed by the accused. To fall under the exception to the rule of granting bail, the prosecution must show circumstances that may frustrate these purposes. The circumstances may include the likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, repeating the offense, or having a previous criminal record.In the present case, the courts below failed to identify any such circumstances that would justify denying bail to the petitioner. The Lahore High Court did not adhere to the established principle of granting bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) CrPC. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail. The petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 500,000/- with two sureties in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.The Supreme Court clarified that the observations made in its order were tentative and should not influence the trial court's proceedings. The trial court should expeditiously proceed with the trial, and if there is any misuse of the bail concession by the petitioner or undue delay in the trial, the prosecution can approach the competent court for bail cancellation under Section 497(5), CrPC. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497(1) & (2)---- Grant of bail in non-prohibitory offenses—Principle of rule and exception—Scope and applicability. Petitioner was accused of preparing a forged sale deed of a rented hospital property and charged under Ss. 420, 468, and 471, PPC—Offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), CrPC—Supreme Court held that in non-prohibitory offenses, grant of bail is the rule, and refusal is the exception—Courts below erred in law by simply relying on the available incriminating material to deny bail, without applying the exceptions to bail refusal—Supreme Court reaffirmed that the primary considerations for denying bail include: (a) likelihood of absconding, (b) risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, (c) possibility of repeating the offense based on past conduct—None of these circumstances were established against the petitioner—Trial court and High Court failed to exercise judicial discretion in line with binding precedents of the Supreme Court—Order of High Court was set aside, and post-arrest bail granted. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 189---- Binding effect of Supreme Court precedents—Duty of courts to follow established principles on bail. Court reiterated that Supreme Court’s rulings are constitutionally binding on all lower courts under Art. 189—In Muhammad Tanveer v. State (PLD 2017 SC 733), it was categorically held that bail in non-prohibitory offenses shall be a rule, and refusal shall be an exception—Failure of courts to adhere to these principles constitutes a misuse of judicial discretion—Courts below ignored these binding principles, leading to wrongful denial of bail—Supreme Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised in line with precedents and legal principles rather than arbitrary assessments of incriminating material. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 420, 468, 471---- Allegation of fraud and forgery—Evidentiary standards for bail consideration. Petitioner was accused of forging a sale deed to claim ownership of a rented hospital property—While the allegations involved dishonest intention and falsification of documents, Supreme Court clarified that the seriousness of the offense alone is not a sufficient ground to deny bail if the offense does not fall under the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), CrPC—Court held that mere existence of incriminating material does not automatically justify denial of bail unless there is a likelihood of obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, or absconding—Since prosecution failed to establish exceptional circumstances, bail was granted. (d) Bail Conditions & Expedited Trial---- ----Ss. 497(5), 173, CrPC---- Post-arrest bail granted—Right of prosecution to seek cancellation in case of misuse. Supreme Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing Rs. 500,000/- bail bond with two sureties—Court directed the trial to be expedited without undue delay—Prosecution was allowed to seek cancellation of bail under S. 497(5), CrPC if the petitioner engaged in delaying tactics or misused the concession of bail—Court clarified that observations in the bail order were tentative and would not influence the trial court’s final determination. Disposition: Appeal allowed—Order of High Court set aside—Post-arrest bail granted. Petitioner admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 500,000/-. Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously—Prosecution allowed to move for bail cancellation in case of misuse. Supreme Court reiterated binding nature of its precedents and emphasized adherence to the rule that bail in non-prohibitory offenses should not be denied arbitrarily.

Summary: In the case of Mohammad Sarfraz Ansari versus The State & another, the petitioner seeks bail after being apprehended under sections 420, 468, 471, 109, 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegations revolve around a scheme where the petitioner, along with co-accused Waqar Aslam, deceitfully withdrew approximately Rs. 52 million through fabricated bills from the Controller Military Accounts (CMA). While initially not implicated in the crime report, subsequent investigations and statements from co-accused individuals implicated the petitioner as the mastermind of the scam. Notably, legal precedents such as the judgments in State v. Sarfraz Khan [Shariat Decisions (1998 SD 1)] and Ghulam Ahmed Chishti v. The State and another [2013 PSC (Crl.)52] were cited, wherein the courts refused post-arrest bail based on the statements of co-accused individuals. Considering the gravity of white-collar crimes and the substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the fraud, the court adopts a dynamic approach to combat corruption and denies the petitioner's request for bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.

Summary: Background: The Ehtesab Bureau of Azad Jammu and Kashmir filed a reference against the respondent for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the APC, and Section 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Ordinance/Act. The Ehtesab Court in Mirpur dismissed the reference on December 26, 2019, citing issues of limitation and the absence of mandatory approval from the Chairman of the Ehtesab Bureau. The petitioner appealed the decision to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2020. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA) before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dismissal of the reference by the Ehtesab Court on procedural grounds, such as limitation and lack of mandatory approval, was justified. 2- Whether the appeal to the High Court was correctly dismissed. 3- Whether the Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the dismissal of the reference on procedural grounds should not overshadow the merits of the case. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel argued the judgments of the lower courts were based on procedural and technical grounds that did not address the substantive evidence presented. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the important legal questions raised by the petitioner, which are of public importance and require resolution in a regular appeal. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a security amount of Rs.1000/- within one month, with failure to do so resulting in the rescission of the leave-granted order. The Court stated that the issue of limitation would be addressed during the final arguments.

Summary: Background:Manzoor Ahmed Akhtar, a Secondary School Teacher, faced criminal charges resulting in his conviction, leading to the loss of his job. Following his release, he presented a fake decision of the High Court of Balochistan, claiming acquittal, which facilitated his reinstatement in the department. An inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Department ensued, implicating him and a co-accused, Nazeer, an office Superintendent. While Nazeer was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, Manzoor Ahmed Akhtar was convicted on multiple charges.---Issues:Whether the High Court's decision to modify the judgment and maintain the guilty verdict against the petitioner was justified.Whether the acquittal of the co-accused affected the prosecution's case against the petitioner.Whether the petitioner's disclaimer of the fake judgment was credible.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the petitioner's conviction on criminal charges was established. His manipulation of a fake judgment to secure his job and subsequent benefits was deemed treacherous. The acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the charges against the petitioner. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing, finding no grounds for exception. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860Section 5(2)47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act