2010 PLP 1672 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1672 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Shamim, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1672 (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 2010 PLP 1672 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Shamim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1672 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Khalid Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471
Accused who was a property dealer, was alleged to have sold a plot purportedly owned exclusively by a person, which on verification by the complainant was not found to be exclusively owned by said person
Accused being a property dealer, was not the direct beneficiary of said transaction
According to the record and as affirmed by the counsel for the complainant, over a period of time, accused had paid' amount to the complainant
Since all the evidence was in the form of documents which had already been taken into possession by the Police, petitioner was not required by the Police for any further investigation
Even otherwise the offences with which accused was charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Delay in lodging of F. I. R. of almost two years had also not been explained by the complainant
Case being fit for grant of post arrest bail, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Ch. Amjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor-General. Ch. Zulfiqar Ali for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam, A.S-I.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 282/2009, dated 15-4-2009, for offence under sections 420,468 and 471, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner who is a property dealer sold a plot to the complainant with the connivance of one Aziz-ur-Rehman the owner thereof which subsequently was found not to be solely owned by the said Aziz-ur-Rehman as a consequence whereof the afore mentioned F.I.R. was lodged.
3. According to the learned counsel there is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. of two years that the petitioner had not received any money from the complainant; that the petitioner is a broker who had only received his commission from the complainant; that there is no allegation of preparation of any forged document by the petitioner and that at this stage he is not required by the police for any purpose.
4. The petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab as well as the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel of the complainant and have gone through the record.
6. The petitioner is a property dealer who is alleged to have sold a plot purportedly owned exclusively by Aziz-ur-Rehman for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000 which on verification by the complainant was not found to be exclusively owned by the said person. As has been argued by the learned counsel, the petitioner is a property dealer and being so is not the direct beneficiary of the said transaction. In any case; according to the record and as affirmed by the learned counsel for the complainant, over a period of time the petitioner has paid Rs.3,90,000 to the complainant. Since all the evidence is in the form of documents which has already been taken into possession by the police, the petitioner is not required by the police for any further investigation. Even otherwise, the offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further, the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. of almost two years has also not been explained by the complainant. For what has been stated above, this is a fit case for the grant of post-arrest bail. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trail Court. H.B.T./M-268/L Bail granted.