MUHAMMAD ALI JUNEJO vs State 497 — 2022 MLD 58 ISLAMABAD

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

MUHAMMAD ALI JUNEJO VS State 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, falsification of accounts, abetment and common intention, public servant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused was that he was found involved in the fraudulent allotment of plots---Offences under Ss. 420, 471 & 477-A, P.P.C., were bailable---Offence under S.468, P.P.C., read with S.5(2)47, P.C.A., was concerned, it had been confirmed by the Investigating Officer that there was no evidence available on record which depicted that the accused/petitioners themselves had prepared any forged document or had received illegal gratification from any person---Investigating Officer further stated that there was no statement of any witness who had alleged that the accused/petitioners had received bribe/illegal gratification from him---Only allegation levelled against the accused/petitioners was that during their posting as Accounts Officer/Divisional Accountant they forwarded the Pay Orders for encashment to the Bank and the amount was credited in the account of Department---Delayed charges were not properly calculated---Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C---Co-accused having the same role had been released on bail, hence the main accused were also entitled for grant of bail on the principle of consistency---Investigation in the case had been completed---Accused/petitioners were previously non-convict---Accused/petitioners were no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation---Accused/petitioners were government servants, there was no chance of their absconsion or tampering with the evidence---Accused/petitioners were behind the bars without any progress in the trial---Fair and speedy trial was one of the fundamental rights of the accused/petitioners---No moral and legal compulsion existed to keep the accused/petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period which amounted to punishment without trial---Tentative assessment of record showed that present accused/petitioners had made out a case of further inquiry as envisaged under S.497(2), Cr.P.C---Accused/petitioners were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ALI JUNEJO vs State 497 — 2022 MLD 58 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD