5. Bail:- Alleged loss to the Bank, if any, was caused by the Board of Directors itself who decided to sell the property to the company at the price fixed by it-Power to do entire business and affairs of the Bank including its management and transactions, vested in the Board of Directors under the relevant law and it was obligatory on the Board to safeguard and protect the interest of the Bank-If any loss had been caused to the Bank in the project of building the property or in sale transaction, its responsibility primarily lay on its Board of Directors which was in dominating position either to award or refuse the transaction-Board of Directors which was at the helm of affairs had not been made answerable while the persons who were subject to the authority of the Board had been nabbed-Documentary evidence on record further showed that the offence could not be committed by the accused without the connivance of the Board of Directors of the Bank against whom no action had been taken so far-Accused was a partner of the company like the other partner who had been allowed bail by the same Bench of the High Court, therefore, case of the accused was at par with the other partner (on bail) hence rule of consistency would be applicable to the extent of the accused-Accused having made out a case for his release on bail moreso when the bail could not be withheld as a punishment. Supreme Court convened the petition for leave to appeal by the accused into an appeal, allowed the same, set aside the Judgment of High Court and ordered that the accused be released on bail on the sum of Rs.20,000,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 2002 SCMR 1478 After the amendment in the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 the Jurisdiction of the Accountability Court for grant of bail remained ousted whereas after the omission of the words ‘including the High Court’ the High Court became vested with Jurisdiction to grant bail in National Accountability Bureau cases under Art.199 of the Constitution. Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 rel. PLD 2002 SC 546 Court, under S. 16(a), National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 being bound to dispose of the case within 30 days, inordinate delay in the prosecution case, if not explained, could be considered a ground for bailing out an accused person depending on the nature and circumstances on account of which delay had been caused. PLD 2003 SC 52 Accused was arrested by National Accountability Bureau and was in judicial lock up-High court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction released the accused on bail-Plea raised by the authorities was that High court had wrongly released the accused in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction-Validity-Accused facing charges under Notional Accountability Ordinance, 1999, could approach High court under Art. 199 of the Constitution-Application under S. 497, Cr.P.C before High court was not maintainable-Supreme court declined to interfere with the order passed by High court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction- 2004 S C M R 91 Accused had allegedly received compensation of his acquired land at enhanced rate using his position as being member of the Land Valuation Committee-prosecution was in possession of sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime-Accused could not show that discriminatory treatment was meted out to him qua other members of Land Valuation committee-Accused was a member and one of the signatories of the said committee-mere fact that official representing WAPDA or Chairman of he committee had not been arrested and the accused had been singled out, by itself, constituted no good ground to release the accused on bail-Trial of the accused was near completion and only the statement of the Investigation officer had to be recorded on the next date of hearing and in case the accused was admitted to bail prosecution case would be adversely affected-Accused was refused bail in circumstances. PLD 2003 Pesh. 74 If the trial of the case had commenced, then, instead of releasing the accused on bail, direction be made for expeditious disposal of the case by adopting certain modalities to ensure that the accused was not detained further for indefinite period-principles. PLD 2003 SC 525 Accused, a civil servant, was behind the bars for the last more than one year; reference against the accused was filed in February, 2002 and even the charge had not been framed; there was no allegation that adjournments were sought by the accused or his counsel; allegations leveled against the accused mostly pertained to violation of some rule but it was not denied that so far as said allegations were concerned, mostly the orders were passed by the Competent Authorities; mere acquisition of properties was not an offence, the offence was constituted when the accused fails to account for those properties; such exercise of proving the acquisition of the properties disproportionate to accused’s known sources of income and the recording of defence evidence to rebut those charges was likely to take sufficient time; provision of S. 16(a) of the Ordinance mandated conclusion of trail within thirty days therefore the incarceration of accused for an indefinite period would not be in accord with the canons of equity and wife of accused was seriously ill and accused had minor children-Bail was granted to the accused by the High Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court PLD 2003 Lah. 517 Record showed that petitioner and his co-accused, while facing the same charge based on the same allegation, subject to the scrutiny at the trial, in the light of evidence yet to be recorded, stood at par with each other and apparently the case against the petitioner was not distinguishable on merits-Co-accused having been granted bail, petitioner, in the light of rule of consistency, would also be entitled to the concession of bail. PLD 2003 SC 668 High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution is empowered to grant bail to a person facing prosecution for an offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and all those grounds which are relevant for grant of bail in the constitutional jurisdiction-High Court has the power to grant bail under Art. 199 of the Constitution, independent of any statutory source of jurisdiction such as S. 497, Cr. P.C – Provision of S. 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to that extent is ultra vires the Constitution. PLD 2003 SC 668 One cannot be tried and punished twice for the charge based on the same allegation and evidence in the same transaction-No bar existed in filing the separate references in the separate transactions involving the similar allegation but one cannot be charged for the second time for the same allegation on the basis of same evidence-Separate trial in more than one references of similar nature relating to the separate transaction can continue but in the light of the rule that one should not be vexed twice for the dame cause the prosecution of the accused on the basis of the same allegation and same evidence in more than one reference would not be legal-Perusal of documents placed on record, in the present case, in support of legal character of the property involved in the reference, would create a reasonable doubt about the correctness of the allegation and consequently, in absence of any other evidence, it would be difficult to form an opinion, that the accused by making concealment of assets in the income tax return and supplying incorrect information to the Income-tax Department, committed the offence with which he was being charged or the concealment was made with the intention to evade the income tax-Unless the prosecution, prima facie, satisfies the Court about the culpability of a person, the bail to him cannot be withheld merely on the basis of presumption of guilt and the essential question for determination in such circumstances would be regarding the true character of the transaction and the nature of offence which was allegedly committed-Unless in the light of evidence in the hands of prosecution, the case is brought within the parameters of expression “reasonable grounds” to believe that the offence with which a person was being charged was committed by him, the bare accusation would not be sufficient to curtail his liberty. PLD 2003 SC 668 Alleged loss to the Bank, if any, was caused by the Board of Directors itself who decided to sell the property to the company at the price fixed by it – Power to do entire business and affairs of the Bank including its management and transactions, vested in the Board of Directors under the relevant law and it was obligatory on the Board to safeguard and protect the interest of the Bank – If any loss had been caused to the Bank in the project of building the property or in sale transaction, its responsibility primarily lay on its Board of Directors which was in dominating position either to award or refuse the transaction – Board of Directors which was at the helm of affairs had not been made answerable while the persons who were subject to the authority of the Board had been nabbed – Documentary evidence on record further showed that the offence could not be committed by the accused without the connivance of the Board of Directors of the Bank against whom no action had been taken so far – Accused was a partner of the company like the other partner who had been allowed bail by the same Bench of the High Court, therefore, case of the accused was at par with the other partner (on bail) hence rule of consistency would be applicable to the extent of the accused – Accused having made out a case for his release on bail moreso when the bail could not be withheld as a punishment. S.C. convened the petition for leave to appeal by the accused into an appeal, allowed the same, set aside the Judgment of High Court and ordered that the accused be released on bail on the sum of Rs.20,000,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 2002 SCMR 1478 After the amendment in the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 the jurisdiction of the Accountability Court for grant of bail remained ousted whereas after the omission of the words ‘including the High Court’ the High Court became vested with jurisdiction to grant bail in National Accountability Bureau cases under Art.199 of the Constitution. Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607

ajax loader