24/11/2022
فوجداری مقدمات میں ملزم کی حاضر ضمانت منظور کر نے کے بارے میں محتلف ججمنٹ میں ہائی کورٹ اور سپریم کورٹ کے نقظہ نظر دیکھیں
منشیات کیس میں، عورت ملزمہ کو گرفتار کرنے والی لیڈی کانسٹیبل کو گواہ نہ رکھا گیا. ملزم بری.
2016 YLR 1362.
منشیات بس کی سیٹوں کے نیچے چھپائی گئی تھی، بس کے کسی مسافر کو گواہ نہ رکھا گیا تھا، ملزم بّری.
2017 PCrLJ 409.
فردِ مقبوضگی میں Over Writing کی بناء پر پراسیکیوشن کیس مشکوک تصور ہو گا.
2017 PCrLJ 501.
منشیات کیس میں برآمد کردہ تمام پڑیوں، بیگوں، شاپرز ٹائروں یا بوتلوں سے Sample بھجوانا لازم ہے.
2020 MLD 49.
ملزم پر منشیات پھینک کر بھاگ جانے کا الزام تھا، ملزم موقع پر گرفتار نہ ہوا تھا، پولیس پارٹی قبل از وقوعہ ملزم کو نہ جانتی تھی، اس لۓ شناخت ملزم مشکوک تھی، ملزم بّری.
2020 PCrLJ 264.
2022 P Cr. L J 981
نوجوان وکلاء جو پراسیکیوٹرز کے طور پر مدعی مقدمہ/کمپلینٹ یا ملزم کیلئے کیس میں عدالت میں پیش ہوتے ہوں،ان کے لیے اس ججمنٹ میں ضابطہ فوجداری 497CrPC ہر پہلو کو ڈسکس کیا ہے
عدالت کو ڈکیتی،سٹریت کرائم جیسے جرائم میں ملوث ملزمان شناخت پریڈ ،گن پوائنٹ پر سینچ کیا گیا موبائل فون، ---Cell phone with the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number that is noted in the FIR
ضمانت کے بارے میں خوبصورت ترین فیصلہ ، نوجوان وکلاء ضرور پڑھیں
اس فیصلہ میں ضمانت کے تمام پہلو
Prohibitory Clause, Reasonable Grounds.
Further Inquiry.
Tentative assessment,
ضمانت کا پس منظر وغیرہ انتہائی تفصیل سے بیان کیے گئے ہیں
2022 P Cr. L J 981
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Bail---Scope---Language of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., might have been acceptable in a colonial State where the indigenous persons did not enjoy complete citizenship and fundamental rights and the State found it expedient to lock up anyone accused of a non-bailable offence---Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that the benefit of any doubt must be granted to the accused, and that bail is not to be denied to an accused as punishment---Language of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., vests in a Court the limited discretion to determine if there exist "reasonable grounds for believing" that the accused is "guilty"---Standard applicable is that of a reasonable man and the language of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., does not require the prosecution to satisfy the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard applicable for securing a conviction---Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. essentially requires a court to prejudge the "guilt" of an accused by applying a "reasonable" man standard, which is a lower standard than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, leaving almost no room to grant an accused the benefit of the doubt at the time of considering his entitlement to bail---Such, together with the innumerable offences, which prescribe a punishment of up to 10 years means that the State has to meet a very basic threshold to take away the right of a citizen to liberty guaranteed by Art. 9 of the Constitution, if he is charged with a non-bailable offence---Accused remains hauled up behind bars pending trial in which the State often fails to meet the higher "beyond reasonable doubt" standard (as reflected by conviction rate), resulting in acquittal, but also resulting in the accused having been imprisoned for years, due to denial of bail pending without ever being convicted.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 10-A---Bail---Security of person---Right to fair trial---Scope---Denial of bail automatically becomes a punishment in view of (i) the broad category of offences that fall within the prohibitory clause, (ii) the limited discretion vested in Court in view of the language of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., and the lax standard that applies to the prosecution to justify arrest, and (iii) the time it takes to complete trials---Such undermines the rights of an accused to liberty guaranteed by Art. 9 and pre-trial punishment without conviction prohibited by Art. 10-A and fundamental principles of fairness, due to courts required to only ascertain, tentatively, if the accused is "guilty" on the basis of a "reasonability" standard---Such assessment takes place at a time when the accused is behind bars and has no ability to fully defend himself as he does not have complete access to the material to be presented by the prosecution before the court to satisfy the "reasonability" threshold---Right to liberty in Art. 9 is subject to law---Language used in S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., creates a prescription by law which renders the right of liberty of a citizen accused of a non-bailable offence pending his trial largely meaningless.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 10-A---Bail---Security of person---Right to fair trial---Scope---Legislature has determined the scope of discretion vested in a court to release a person on bail who has been accused of a non-bailable offence---Legislature in balancing the interest of the State in prosecuting offenders and the rights of a person to liberty (till such time that he or she has been convicted after a fair trial) could have left only the most heinous offences within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Such would probably be in line with provisions of Arts. 9 & 10-A of the Constitution and the settled principle of fairness and justice that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty---Legislature has not done so and has placed fetters on the right to liberty of a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence punishable for up to ten years in prison---Only discretion vested in the Court for purposes of bail in an offence falling under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., is for the court to satisfy itself that sufficient grounds exist to support a belief that the person arrested is guilty of an offence he has been charged---Court cannot give the words of S. 497(1), and specially the word "punishable" used therein any meaning other than its ordinary textual meaning which inevitably means that given that punishment up to ten years imprisonment is prescribed in relation to a large number of offences, the persons accused of such offences are not entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Bail---Prohibitory clause---Word "punishable"---Scope---Plain reading of S. 497, Cr.P.C. suggests that it is the maximum sentence prescribed that is to be considered in relation to an offence for purposes of determining whether or not such offence falls within the prohibitory clause---First part of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. is permissive and allows a person arrested to be released on bail who is accused of a non-bailable offence---Second part of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. contains a prohibition against the release of a person arrested for being accused of a non-bailable offence and has come to be recognized as the prohibitory part of S. 497 (i.e. the prohibitory clause)---Prohibition is applicable in relation to a person who has been arrested after being accused of a non-bailable offence "punishable" with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years---Operative word here is "punishable"---Word "punishable" has been defined to mean "subject to a punishment" when used in relation to a person---Meaning of the word "punishable" therefore clarifies that in the event that a person has been charged for an offence which could possibly result in the punishment of ten years in prison such offence would fall within the prohibitory clause---Any offence in relation to which punishment has been prescribed in the form of a range and it has been left to the court to determine the sentence in view of the facts of the case, but the maximum punishment that could possibly be awarded for such offence is ten years, would fall within the prohibitory part of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Simply put, it is the maximum punishment and not the minimum punishment in relation to an offence under P.P.C. that determines whether or not the accused is "punishable" for ten years and whether the offence in question falls within the prohibitory clause or not---Court was not to try and predict the possible sentence that would be imposed on a person under arrest for being an accused of a non-bailable offence.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Bail---Prohibitory clause---"Reasonable grounds"---Scope---Section 97(1) provides a broad threshold to guide the courts in exercising their discretion in bail matters---Initially the prohibitory part of section 497(1) provided that a person was not to be released on bail if there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that he was guilty of a non-bailable offence that he had been charged with---Said proviso was amended and substituted in 1923 when the prohibition was limited to offences punishable with death or transportation for life---Said provision was once again amended in 1974 and the prohibition in S. 497(1) was extended to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years---Legislative intent in view of the words used in S. 497(1) is therefore unambiguous---In relation to offences which attract a maximum punishment of less than ten years, bail is granted as a matter of right---However, in cases where a person has been arrested for a non-bailable offence the maximum punishment for which is up to ten years in prison, the court is required to determine, "if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty" of such offence---Second proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. places the responsibility of showing cause as to why an accused should not be released on bail upon the prosecution---Prosecution is to satisfy the court that reasonable grounds do exist for supporting the belief that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with up to ten years of imprisonment---If the prosecution fails to do so, the court can admit an accused to bail under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. even where he stands accused of a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497--- Bail--- "Reasonable grounds"--- Scope--- "Reasonable grounds" is an expression which connotes that the grounds be such as would appeal to a reasonable man for connecting the accused with the crime with which he is charged, "grounds" being a word of higher import than "suspicion"---However, strong a suspicion may be it would not take the place of reasonable grounds---Grounds will have to be tested by reason for their acceptance or rejection---Reasonableness of the grounds has to be shown by the prosecution by displaying its cards to the Court, as it may possess or is expecting to possess as demonstrating evidence available in the case both direct and circumstantial.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Bail---"Reasonable grounds"---Scope---While it is not for a court to conduct anything in the nature of preliminary trial at bail stage to consider the probability of accused person's guilt or innocence---Court is to ascertain as to whether there exist any reasonable grounds upon which its belief can be founded to look on the materials placed before it by the Investigating Agency and be prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence can be offered which if left un-rebutted may lead to the inference of guilt before it can come to the conclusion that this discretion no longer exists---Such evidently means that the discretion of the Court in refusing bail in cases of offences punishable with death or transportation is wrested away only after the Investigating Agency satisfies the Court prima facie that there are reasonable grounds in the case which if not rebutted would lead to the inference of guilt of accused persons.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 497--Bail--Tentative assessment---Scope---Court, in case of bail is not required to probe into the matter but has to make a tentative assessment of the material produced to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the crime.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Bail---Reasonable grounds---Scope---Term "reason to believe" can be classified at a higher pedestal than mere suspicion and allegation but not equivalent to proved evidence---Even the strongest suspicion cannot transform in "reason to believe"--- Criteria laid down seems to be that where some tangible evidence is available against the accused which, if left un-rebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt.
Criminal Procedure Code
--S. 497---Bail---Further inquiry---Scope---Bail is to be allowed if it appears to the Court that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused---Now what would constitute as sufficient grounds for further inquiry would depend on the peculiar facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down for that purpose---Every hypothetical question which can be imagined would not make it a case of further inquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the trial court subsequently after evaluation of evidence---Broadly speaking, the condition laid down in clause (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C., is that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus with the result of the case and may show or tend to show that accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged.
Criminal Procedure Code S. 497---Bail---Discretionary jurisdiction---Structured discretion---Scope---Discretion is vested in the court to release a person on bail who has been accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or punishment up to ten years---Such discretion has to be exercised on the basis of whether or not the court has been convinced by the prosecution that sufficient material exists on record which satisfies the test of existence of reasonable grounds for the court to believe that the person is guilty of such offence which falls within the prohibitory clause.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392 & 411---Robbery---Dishonestly receiving stolen property---Bail, refusal of---Identification parade---Scope---Accused was alleged to have snatched mobile phone and cash from the complainant on gunpoint---Features of the accused were mentioned by the complainant and recorded in the FIR---Accused, after having been arrested in the relation to another FIR, was included in an identification parade and was positively identified by the complainant---Nothing was placed on record to establish that the identification parade was not carried out in accordance with law---Such identification parade was carried out within ten days of the accused having been arrested---Cell phone with the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number that is noted in the FIR was recovered from the possession of the accused---Argument that the number of the SIM Card (Subscriber Identity Module Card) installed in the phone was not mentioned in the FIR made no difference as the SIM Card was replaceable and it was the IMEI number that was unique to the phone---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances
*بچوں کی حفاظت کے متعلق پاکستان پینل کوڈ میں حالیہ شامل کی گئی دفعات*
* .پندرہ سال سے کم عمر لڑکا یا لڑکی بچہ شمار ہو گا ۔
498-D PPC
* اگر والدین بچوں کی پرورش میں لاپرواہی کریں تو والدین کو تین ماہ قید اور پچاس ہزار تک جرمانہ کی سزا ہو سکتی
498-E PPC
* جو شخص بچوں کو مزدوری کرنے کی غرض سے لے جاتا ہے اسے ایک ماہ قید و جرمانہ کی سزا ہو سکتی ہے
498-F PPC
اگر کوئی شخص بچوں سے مزدوری کرواتا ہے اسکو پانچ سال قید و جرمانہ کی سزا ہو گی تاہم جرمانہ کی رقم پانچ لاکھ سے کم نہیں ہو گی
498-G PPC
* بچوں پر تشدد کرنا یا ظلم کرنے کی سزا ایک ماہ قید اور دس لاکھ جرمانہ ہے ۔ جرمانہ بچوں کی فلاح و بہبود کے لیے استعمال ہو گا
498-H PPC
* تعلیمی اداروں میں بچوں پر تشدد کرنا جرم ہے جسکی سزا ایک سال قید اور کم از کم جرمانہ ایک لاکھ ہو گا ۔
498-I PPC
بچوں سے جنسی فعل کرنا سنگین جرم ہے جسکی سزا سزائے موت ہوگی اور ایک کروڑ تک جرمانہ ہو گا
498- J PPC
معصوم بچوں کی فحش فلمیں بنانا اور انکو سوشل میڈیا یا انٹرنیٹ پر لگانا سنگین جرم ہے جسکی سزا عمر قید اور ایک کروڑ تک جرمانہ ہو سکتی ہے
498- K PPCپولیس کا کام کسی بھی کریمنل کیس کے حوالے سے شواہد اکھٹے کرکے عدالت کو چلان جمع کرنا ہوتا ہے۔ پولیس کسی کو بے گناہ یا مجرم سرزد نہیں کرسکتی ، یہ کورٹ کا کام ہے کہ وہ فیصلہ کرے کہ کس کے خلاف کارروائی کی جاے یا نہ
P L D 2006 Supreme Court 316
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 420/467/468/471---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.4(1), 63, 173 & 190---Police Rules, 1934, R.24.7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---High Court had directed that the petitioners before it in the constitutional petition who were accused persons in an F.I.R., would not be treated as accused and would not be challaned in the case, only because the Investigating Officer had informed the High Court that the involvement of the said accused persons in the case could not he established and that they had not forged any document or offered any kind of inducement to the complainant to secure any pecuniary benefit---Investigation according to S.4(1), Cr.P.C. only meant collection of evidence and no more---Determination of guilt or innocence of the accused persons was an obligation cast on the Courts of law which task could never be permitted to be delegated to the police officers investigating a case---Provisions of' S.63, Cr.P.C. had prohibited discharge of an accused person except under a special order of a 'Magistrate---Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, had also prohibited cancellation of F.I.Rs without the orders of the Magistrate---Provisions of S.173, Cr.P.C. had provided only that after the available material had been collected by the S.H.O. during investigation, result of the same had to be reported to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S.190, Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Magistrate was to decide whether the accused did or did not deserve to be tried---Impugned order passed by High Court only on the alleged opinion of the Investigating Officer, therefore, was not sustainable and the same was set aside by converting the petition for leave to appeal into appeal which was allowed---S.H.O. was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
