Muhammad Yousaf vs State S — 2025 MLD 907 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Muhammad Yousaf VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 408, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for valuable security, forged document, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused person was that he fraudulently made illegal cash withdrawals of fund, causing huge loss to government exchequer---Allegedly, an amount of Rs.25,633,300.00 had been embezzled during the span commencing from year 2019 up till the complainant, (Chairman of Municipal Committee) came to know about the said illegal withdrawal of the funds from development account of Municipal Committee in the year 2024---During such period of time, besides accused-applicant Ex-Chief Officer Municipal Committee, and several other officers, being Chief Officer Municipal Committee, discharged their duties as Administrators Municipal Committee, thus fixing the liability merely upon accused at such stage would be difficult, making his case one of further inquiry as contemplated under clause (2) of S.497 of Cr.P.C.---As far as the case of other accused-applicant, Sweeper Municipal Committee, was concerned, although Rs.9,677,300.00/-had been recovered from his account, but there was no evidence that he had withdrawn the said amount---As per prosecution, said accused-applicant came up with the plea that he had borrowed some money from accused-applicant and in turn, had given him his cheque book with signatures in order to encash his salary from bank directly, which also made his case one of further inquiry---Mere receipt of funds in a bank account could not be construed as proof of involvement in the crime due to insufficient and incomplete material, which could only be determined after recording of the evidence at the conclusion of the trial---Entire case was based upon documentary evidence, which had already been taken into possession, and as such the applicants after remand to the judicial custody were no more required for the purpose of interrogation and investigation, henceforth, keeping them in the custody would serve no purpose rather would amount to punishment before judgment---It is better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence could repair the wrong resulting from a mistaken relief of bail---Post arrest bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Yousaf vs State S — 2025 MLD 907 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD