Pakistan Case Law← Search
2010 P Cr. L J 1784

MUHAMMAD MUQEEM vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE KOTRI and others

Citation2010 P Cr. L J 1784
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision Application No, S-57 of 2010
Date2010-06-14
Judge(s)Faisal Arab
ResultApplication allowed

ORDER

1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---Present revision application has been filed against cancellation of bail.

2. ' The applicant is said to be co-owner to the extent of 15% in the firm which owned the disputed property but by manipulating the Revenue Record he was shown to be the exclusive owner and issued allotments in favour of various persons.

3. ' Proceedings were filed before Executive District Officer (Revenue) who reversed the entries in the Revenue Record that were made in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, criminal proceedings were also lodged against the applicant wherein after seeking concession of bail he had committed the same crime by claiming to be the absolute owner of the disputed property and made further allotments to other persons. This led to filing another criminal case bearing Crime No, 331 of 2008 from which the present proceedings have arisen.

4. ' The bail was cancelled in the second case on following grounds:-- "Since the accused is habitual in committing forgery and he has already misused the concession of bail given in Crime No,173 of 2008 at Police Station, Kotri as thereafter, he tried to tamper with evidence and issued threats to the prosecution witness for which one NC was lodged at Police Station Hali and then one F.I.R. Bearing No, 224 was lodged at Police Station, Qassimabad, so, if he would again be released on bail then he would tamper with the evidence and would again misuse the concession of bail.

5. ' The accused had already committed forgery and for this he has been declared as fraudulent person by the learned EDO Revenue Jamshoro in Revision No, 474 of 2007 this fact is also supported with the Photo copy of order passed by EDO Revenue Jamshoro on 11-5-2007.

6. ' No enmity has been shown or given by the accused with the complainant and mere statement of alleging enmity does not create any right in favour of the accused. No doubt sections do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause, but it is not the hard and fast rule that the accused must be released on bail in such cases, therefore, in above circumstances, I hereby allow the application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. And cancel the bail granted to accused by the learned I-Civil Judge and J.M. Kotri on 3-4-2010 and accused taken into custody and remanded to Central Prison Hyderabad with direction to be produced before the Court of learned I-Civil Judge and J.M. Kotri to face his trial in the case and crime."

7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant states that in civil litigation that is pending it is to be decided whether any forgery has been committed by the applicant. With regard to allegation that prosecution witnesses have been threatened by the applicant learned counsel states that no such threat has been given by the present applicant.

8. ' Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of this revision application on the ground that on account of forgery that the applicant had committed twice and the fact that he misused the concession of bail by giving threats to the prosecution witnesses, his bail was rightly cancelled.

9. ' Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, learned Additional Prosecutor-General on the other hand argued that though there is an allegation of forgery that has been committed twice by the applicant but it does not pertain to the period after grant of bail in the second case. He also contends that there is no material to show that prosecution witnesses have been harassed.

10. In view of such statement from the State itself that the prosecution witnesses have not been harassed, I am of the opinion that bail ought not to have been cancelled. However, it is made clear that in case of any cogent material before the trial Court comes which shows that the prosecution witnesses are being harassed or being prevented from coming to the Court to give evidence then the trial Court shall be at liberty to consider cancellation of bail.

11. ' Consequently this revision application is allowed. And the impugned order dated 5-5-2010 is set aside.

12. ' However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within two (2) months.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search