State vs Ahmed Hassan S — 2025 PCrLJ 120 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.

State VS Ahmed Hassan S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Scope---Relief of pre-arrest bail is only available to an innocent person, who has been involved or dragged in a false case---While granting such exceptional remedy to a person, Court must examine the case with a view to see the correctness or falsity of the case i.e. whether the facts alleged in the FIR do constitute commission of a cognizable offence---There is no legal provision for pre-arrest bail unlike post arrest bail. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 120 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtBookmark this Case State VS Ahmed Hassan S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161, 406, 409, 417, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating, forgery, taking illegal gratification by corrupt or illegal means and criminal misconduct---Pre-arrest bail, cancellation of---Misuse of bail---Accused was charged for committing corruption/embezzlement in the official budget of City Hospital---Record showed that the Trial Court had granted the extraordinary relief to the accused/ respondent in a very ordinary manner---Trial Court had not recorded a single sentence/finding on the points of prima facie case and involvement of the accused/respondent in the present case---Trial Court had also not given a single reason regarding the consequences of arrest of accused/respondent---Record transpired that after a formal inquiry the case had been registered---Accused/respondent was directly charged in the FIR and his role of being the Medical Superintendent of the said Hospital was specifically mentioned therein---Beside the above, the case was one of documentary evidence and verification of the same was required---Prima facie accused/respondent was facing a charge structured upon documentary evidence---Accused/respondent during the days of occurrence was the Medical Superintendent of said Hospital, therefore, question of false implication did not arise---Question of rule of consistency did not arise because the co-accused had joined the investigation and he was later on released by High Court on post arrest bail---Trial Court had blatantly disregarded the established principle for grant of pre-arrest bail and granted exceptional remedy in favour of the accused/respondent on irrelevant grounds and upholding such an illegal order, which was clear example of wrong exercise of jurisdiction, was tantamount to setting a bad judicial precedent---If such kind of decision was not overturned, same would encourage future abuse of jurisdiction---Pre-arrest bail granted in favour of accused was withdrawn, in circumstances.

State vs Ahmed Hassan S — 2025 PCrLJ 120 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ