MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM vs State O — 2021 PLD 927 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM VS State O.XXIII, R. 2, Second proviso.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal in a criminal matter filed before the Supreme Court---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause, determination of---Sufficiency of the cause was to be determined in each case on the basis of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 927 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM VS State S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court seeking bail---Bail, grant of---Scope---Practice of the Supreme Court was not to intervene in bail matters ordinarily, leaving them to the discretion of the courts inquiring into the guilt of the accused persons, unless it was found that those courts had exercised the discretion arbitrarily, perversely or contrary to the settled principles of law regulating bail matters. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 927 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM VS State S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court seeking bail---Offence falling within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C---Bail, grant/refusal of---Principles. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 927 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM VS State S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A & 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Preparing forged deed, managing fake Bank guarantees, and misappropriation of public money---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against the accused was that he along with the co-accused prepared forged deed of Joint Venture for a builder and contractor, obtained two construction contracts worth Rs.67,92,88,000/- on the basis of that deed for construction of the building of the government school, managed fake Bank guarantees, and misappropriated an amount of Rs.13,79,06,538/- of the Provincial Government paid for construction of the building of the school---Counsel for accused was unable to explain why the accused had been a beneficiary of Rs 20 million, in the absence of any construction supplies made to the contractors of the Joint Venture---Counsel although submitted that said payment was the "commission" due to the accused, yet remained unable to explain the nature of the said commission---In such background, the conclusion of the High Court that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed the offences alleged was consistent with the incriminating material available on the record of the case, and was in no manner perverse or arbitrary---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and accused was refused bail. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 927 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM VS State O.XXIII, R. 2, Second proviso.---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 10A, 14, 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal in a criminal matter filed before the Supreme Court---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---In cases relating to imprisoned accused (seeking post-arrest bail) or convicted persons 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay was to be viewed through the lens of fundamental rights to liberty, dignity and fair trial, and determined with a lenient and liberal approach for providing such persons with equal access to court and proper opportunity to defend themselves---Person approaching a court of law for the redressal of his grievance from behind bars, suffered a disability in comparison to those who enjoyed liberty and freedom of movement---Incarceration of an accused seeking post arrest bail by itself constituted "sufficient cause" to allow condonation of delay, unless it was established that the delay was caused by the accused due to some ulterior motive.

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM vs State O — 2021 PLD 927 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLD