‘SC intervenes in bail matters where courts exercise discretion arbitrarily’

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court intervenes in bail matters, where courts inquiring into the guilt of the accused persons, exercise discretion to grant or deny bail arbitrarily, perversely or contrary to the settled principles of law.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, held this in a post-arrest bail case.

The bench granted bail to Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari, a petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs500,000, with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The Lahore High Court (LHC) had dismissed the petition of Sarfraz in a corruption case.

The apex court judgment said: “No doubt, it is the practice of this court not to intervene in bail matters ordinarily, leaving them to the discretion of the courts inquiring into the guilt of the accused persons. However, in cases where the discretion is found to have been exercised arbitrarily, perversely or contrary to the settled principles of law, this Court does not hesitate to interfere with that wrong exercise of discretion, in the interest of justice. The court that in the instant matter, the trial court and the High Court have not exercised their discretion in accordance with the principles of law governing such discretion.”

Waqas Aslam (co-accused), in connivance with the officers/officials of the office of Controller Military Accounts (CMA) fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs52,254,074, through thirty-three fake bills of Central Ordinance Depot (COD), Rawalpindi, in favour of his four firms and deposited in five different bank accounts of those firms, operated by him.

Waqas, implicated the petitioner, an ex-official of the CMA, during investigation in his confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), for being his partner in, rather mastermind of, the whole fraud.

The court noticed that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; he has rather been implicated in the case by the co-accused Waqar Aslam, the prima facie beneficiary of the alleged fraud.

Court said it is a well-settled principle that at the bail stage the court is not to make deeper examination and appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation or to conduct anything in the nature of a preliminary trial to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence.

However, for deciding the prayer of an accused for bail, the question whether or not there exist reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed the alleged offence cannot be decided in vacuum.

The court, for answering the said question, has to look at the material available on record when the bail is applied for and be satisfied that there is, or is not, prima facie some tangible evidence which, if left un-rebutted, may lead to the inference of the guilt of the accused.

The co-accused, Waqar Aslam, stated in his confessional statement that the fake bills were prepared, and 80 percent of the withdrawn amount was taken by the present petitioner.

However, there is no material to corroborate the said statement.

The recovered data from the mobile phone does not implicate the petitioner of the act besides it relates to the sale tax invoices and contractor bills of a firm, namely, Ali Traders, and not to the firms owned by the co-accused, Waqar Aslam, in whose favour the alleged fake bills were encashed.

The court noticed that the material currently available on record of the case is not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offences, and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed the alleged offences; but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt in terms of Section 497(2) of CrPC.

The bench, therefore, granted bail to Sarfraz Ansari.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021