PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1038 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MOSSIN WALI vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1038 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2025 YLR 1038 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
YLR
Parties
Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1038 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MOSSIN WALI vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 561-; S. 5; Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1038 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MOSSIN WALI VS State Ss. 497 & 561-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Criminal breach of trust, cheating by personation, cheating, forgery, using as genuine a forged document, abetment---Bail, grant of---allegedly, accused-petitioner misappropriated, diverted and siphoned huge amount from the complainant's father---Court passed a short order allowing bail to the accused-petitioner with bail amount set at Rs. one crore, which bail amount was about less than of half Rs. 21,091,201/-, the amount mentioned in the interim charge sheet---Later, accused-petitioner filed an application under S. 561-a, Cr.P.C. seeking a reduction of the bail amount from one crore to ten lac---Complainant also filed an application under S. 561-a, Cr.P.C seeking an enhancement of the bail amount from one crore to Rs. 21,091,201/----Held, that record showed that the applicant/accused was a seasoned banker having apparently almost 20 years of banking experience, having served in three/four different banks, he was a person of means, and, after leaving HBL Bank in 2020, he entered into the real estate business while passing off as a Branch Manager of HBL with the complainant's father whom he knew for a long time---applicant/ accused had produced neither additional material nor brought on record any new facts to dislodge the amount of bail of Rs. 1 crore fixed by the High Court to grant bail to the applicant/accused---Neither any plausible nor reasonable grounds had been disclosed by the applicant/accused to reduce the bail amount---application for reduction of bail had been filed within less than 10 days from the bail granting order, and no real intent or effort had been demonstrated to suggest that the accused had suffered unnecessarily for reasons beyond his control, with the bail amount fixed at Rs. 1 crore---Bail amount was in line with the gravity of the charge against the accused and also consistent with the High Court exercising its inherent powers read in the light of S. 5(7) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984---applicant/accused was a professional banker with considerable experience and dealing with the complainant for almost a lifetime---accused/applicant breached the trust of complainant's father and his fiduciary duty as a banker---Intentions of accused/applicant appeared premeditative (which would be the prosecution's case to prove), apparently misappropriating/ embezzling funds of Rs.2.1 crore, which would be safely parked and might be liquidated to put up the bail of Rs.1 crore---Based on the tentative examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of the bail amount of Rs. 1 crore (50% of the misappropriated/embezzled amount of Rs.2.1 Crore) was reasonable, and less than the misappropriated/embezzled amount mentioned in the Interim Charge Sheet---Bail amount of Rs. 1 crore neither constituted punishment nor was it excessive nor beyond the means of the applicant/accused---Complainant had neither furnished any fresh information nor case law supporting his prayer---While deciding a bail application, the High Court exercised special jurisdiction and was not beholden strictly to any statutory provision of the Cr.P.C---So long as the quantum of the bail was within the contours of reasonableness in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and even otherwise, in certain situations, the Court did not even need to give any reasons for deciding upon a particular bail amount---Both the petitions filed by accused and complainant were dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English