2018 PLP 140 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 140 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Shakeel Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 140 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 140 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Shakeel Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 140 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Daris Khan for Petitioner.
- 3. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contends that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that he is behind the bar since 14.4.2017, therefore, he is entitled for the concession of bail. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the offence in which the petitioner is charged is non-bailable and that the accused/ petitioner is a habitual offender, therefore, does not deserve the concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Maximum punishment for alleged offence did not fall within prohibition contained in S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was entitled to be released on bail
Possibility existed that at the conclusion of trial, accused was only sentenced with fine
Concession of granting bail must favourably be considered where case fell outside prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and could only be declined in exceptional circumstances
Bail was granted accordingly. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Zafar Iqbal v. Anwar and others 2009 SCMR 1488 rel. Mian Arshad Ahmad Jan, A.A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.
The petitioner has been arrested in case FIR No.294 dated 14.4.2017 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station, Shaheed Gulfat Hussain Peshawar for dishonour of thirty cheque amounting to Rs. 24,00,000/-. He was arrested in the present case on 19.4.2017.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contends that the offence does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that he is behind the bar since 14.4.2017, therefore, he is entitled for the concession of bail. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the offence in which the petitioner is charged is non-bailable and that the accused/ petitioner is a habitual offender, therefore, does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the maximum punishment provided under section 489-F, P.P.C. is three years or with fine or with both, which does not fall within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. when the offence is punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both, the accused/petitioner is entitled to be released on bail because, if at the conclusion of the trial, he is only sentenced with fine, the period as under trial prisoner due to refusal of bail shall amount to a case of double jeopardy, thus, keeping in view the law laid down in case titled "Zafar Iqbal v. Anwar and others" (2009 SCMR 1488) ordaining that where a case falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. the concession of granting bail must be favourably considered and should only be declined in exceptional cases.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is accepted and the accused/ petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate concerned, who shall ensure that the sureties must by local, reliable and men of means. WA/190/P Bail granted.