Скачать или смотреть 2024 SCMR 1103 Supreme Court OF Pakistan / Bail Granted

2024 SCMR 1103 Supreme Court OF Pakistan.

2024 S C M R 1103
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
Syed SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 155 of 2024, decided on 21st March, 2024.
(Against the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 5258-B of 2023).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 34, 109, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Banking scam---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to be one of the beneficiaries of a banking scam, who had received part of the misappropriated amount---Petitioner (accused) was not named in the list of 287 account holders who were nominated in the alleged unlawful transactions---Sole allegation against the petitioner was that his bank statements indicated receipt of a certain amount in his account as a beneficiary from an account holder of the bank---However, it was notable that the account holder in question from whom the amount was transferred to the petitioner was not implicated or nominated in the FIR---Furthermore, the alleged amount was not transferred to the petitioner's account at the bank where the scam occurred but was received allegedly in an account maintained by the petitioner at another bank, which was registered in the name of a business---Mere receipt of funds in a bank account could not be construed as proof of involvement in the scam at present stage as there was insufficient and incomplete material available on the record to establish any connection of the petitioner---Petitioner's criminal liability could only be determined after recording of evidence by the Trial Court---Mere nomination of the petitioner in the FIR without substantive material and without nominating the account holder by whom the amount was allegedly transferred in the bank account of the petitioner's company was insufficient to justify his further detention---Petitioner was behind the bars for more than nine months, and there was no likelihood of progress in the trial---Case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail.