1989 P Cr (PLP)
TAHIR RASHID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | TAHIR RASHID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (TAHIR RASHID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/406‑‑Bail before arrest‑ Accused moved Sessions Court for pre‑arrest bail but could not pursue bail application because of his indisposition for which he appended a medical certificate‑‑Accused was allowed pre‑arrest bail for ten days to enable him to move bail application before Sessions Court. Mian Najam‑uz‑Zaman, AA.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/406‑‑Bail before arrest‑ Accused moved Sessions Court for pre‑arrest bail but could not pursue bail application because of his indisposition for which he appended a medical certificate‑‑Accused was allowed pre‑arrest bail for ten days to enable him to move bail application before Sessions Court. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner. Mian Najam‑uz‑Zaman, AA.G. for the State. The petitioner has applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No. 51, dated 17‑12‑1988 under section 420/468/471/406, P.P.C. at Police Station `A' Division Kasur.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. by the complainant that he deals in business of coal and the present petitioner supplies coal to brick kiln after taking the same from him. It is alleged that this business relationship developed further and petitioner got coal on credit to the extent of Rs.5,
420. The payment of this amount was postponed on one pretext or the other. Thereafter; it is alleged that settlement of account took place between the parties and an amount of Rs.48,730 was shown balance towards the petitioner. Out of the same Rs.10,000 was paid in cash and for the rest of the amount two cheques were issued allegedly by the petitioner. However, those cheques were dishonoured due to the reason that no amount was available according to the complainant in the account of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has applied for pre‑arrest bail on the ground that the mere reading of F.I.R. discloses the civil dispute between the parties and he has been involved mala fide in the criminal litigation. He has also argued that there is a delay of more than 8 months in the registration of the case and the complainant has only involved him out of ulterior motive just to wreck his business relationship. It is evident that the petitioner earlier moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur but he could not pursue his bail application because of his indisposition for which he had appended the medical certificate. Without dilating upon the merits of case I admit the petitioner to pre‑arrest bail till 8th of April, 1989 to enable him to move the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Kasur. This bail order will ensure till 8th April,1989. N.H.Q./T‑64/L Pre‑arrest bail granted.