2002 PLP 3602 (YLR)
SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3602 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3602 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3602 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3602 (YLR) (SHAUKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17/22‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he had received money from complainant for sending him abroad for purpose of employment, but accused neither sent him abroad nor returned the said money to him‑‑ Complainant present in Court had stated that he had received amount back and that he did not want to prosecute case against the accused ‑‑‑Witnesses before whom amount was given to accused had also sworn affidavits in support of statement of complainant‑‑‑Since witnesses were not supporting prosecution case and amount had been paid back by accused to the complainant to show his bona fides, case against accused fell within purview of further inquiry' and did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. ‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Javaid Sarfraz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17/22‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he had received money from complainant for sending him abroad for purpose of employment, but accused neither sent him abroad nor returned the said money to him‑‑ Complainant present in Court had stated that he had received amount back and that he did not want to prosecute case against the accused ‑‑‑Witnesses before whom amount was given to accused had also sworn affidavits in support of statement of complainant‑‑‑Since witnesses were not supporting prosecution case and amount had been paid back by accused to the complainant to show his bona fides, case against accused fell within purview of further inquiry' and did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. ‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioner. Javaid Sarfraz for the State. Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.286 registered on 7‑8‑2001 under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, at Police Station FIA Passport Cell, Lahore.
2. Brief allegations in the F.I.R. are that petitioner Shaukat Ali promised with the complainant for sending him abroad for the purpose of employment and has received the amount of Rs.3,00,000 in the presence of Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Akbar witnesses and after holding of the inquiry a case has been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a civil dispute was between the petitioner and the complainant for the taking of some money which has been converted into criminal offence. It is further contended that the affidavits have been sworn which are on the police file by the witnesses namely Muhammad Akbar, and Muhammad Khan and the complainant and they do not want to prosecute the petitioner to this case. The complainant is present in person and states that he receive the amount back and does not want to prosecute tie case against the petitioner.
4. In this view of the matter when the witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case and the amount has been paid back by the petitioner to show the bona fides. The case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry and does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2 lacs with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Central. H.B.T./S‑487/L Bail granted