2008 PLP 303 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 303 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 303 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 303 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 303 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Muzaffar Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XIV of 1860), S.489-F
High Court though had already granted bail in one case to accused, but while considering bail application of accused in that case, the fact of registration of several other F.I.Rs. against him was brought to the notice of the Court
Effect
Bail though normally was granted in offence like 489-F, P.P.C., but in view of fact that eight F.I.Rs. were registered against the accused, concession of bail could not be extended to him
Bail application of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of the petitioner in F.I.R. No.84 -of 2007, dated 29-10-2007 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the petitioner issued a Cheque No.168727, dated 4-5-2006 of Rs.2,50,000 same was dishonoured by the bank.
3. The learned counsel submits that the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and petitioner is behind the bars since 17-3-2007. The learned counsel also submits that there is no legal transaction mentioned between the parties in the F.I.R.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that already this Court granted bail to the petitioner on 21-9-2007 in F.I.R. No. 45 of 2007. They further contend that the petitioner is a habitual offender and as many as in total 8 F.I.Rs. stands registered against the petitioner in the similar nature of offence. The said F.I.Rs. are registered at Police Stations Model Town and Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala.
5. It is correct that this Court already granted bail in one case to the petitioner as noted above. I have perused the said order while considering bail application of the petitioner in the above mentioned case, the point of registration of several other F.I.Rs. was not raised therein. Therefore, in view of this fact brought into the notice of the Court that so many F.I.Rs. stand registered against the petitioner, though normally bail is granted in offence like 489-F, P.P.C. but in view of the fact mentioned above, i.e. registration of 8 F.I.Rs., I do not find it proper to extend concession of bail to the petitioner.
6. For the above reasons, this bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-592/L Bail refused.