Nadeem Farid vs State S — 2024 YLR 2582 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

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

Nadeem Farid VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 409, 417, 420, 465, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Embezzlement and corruption---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Record transpired that the accused/petitioner had been implicated in the offences which were prima facie not attracted against him---No denial of the fact that the Hospital concerned was primarily accountable for the said embezzlement and corruption according to the rules, being sole custodian of the concerned department, but it seemed that the liability had been malafidely/dishonestly shifted to junior staff, which was not even the concerned/ministerial staff---This was against the law/rules and such dishonest act of the concerned authority created serious doubts and dents in the case of the prosecution---Main co-accused Medical Superintendent of the Hospital and contractor, who were directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR and allegedly specific role had been attributed to them by the complainant, had been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, which also attracted the universal, "Rule of Consistency" in favor of the present accused/petitioner---Undoubtedly, all the alleged offences were bailable, except the offence under S.409, P.P.C, which fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, which prima facie was not attracted in the present case to the extent of the present accused/petitioner---Furthermore, the complainant present in Court appeared before the Court on his own accord and stated at bar that he had neither alleged nor nominated the present accused/petitioner in the FIR for the commission of alleged offences and went on to say that had no complaint against the present accused/petitioner---Perusal of the record revealed that one of main accused/Cashier was still at large and the respondent/State had taken no action against him---No specific amount or figure of alleged embezzlement amount by the present accused/ petitioner had been mentioned in the FIR or anywhere in the record---First Information Report had been lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay of almost four years, which created serious dents and doubts in the prosecution story---Whole case of prosecution was based on documentary evidence, which was already in the prosecution file---Present petitioner was no more required for further investigation purposes and there was no chance of tempering of record of the case---Concession of bail could not be withheld by way of punishments---Accused could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period, when co-accused had been granted bail---Connection of the accused with the commission of alleged offences was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence---Matter in hand required further probe into the guilt of the petitioner---In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception---Case of the accused/ petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C, entitling him for the concession of post arrest bail and the same was allowed, in circumstances.

Nadeem Farid vs State S — 2024 YLR 2582 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR