2007 PLP 73 (MLD)
ATIF WAHLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 73 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATIF WAHLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 73 (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 2007 PLP 73 (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: 2007 PLP 73 (MLD) (ATIF WAHLA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asif Kainth for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406
Order of Trial Court whereby bail application of accused was refused, had revealed that on two previous occasions, bail application of accused was dismissed for non-prosecution as he had deliberately failed to appear before the Court when same was fixed for confirmation
Accused in circumstances had misused the concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to him by the Court below
Even on merits, accused was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of obtaining the car on rent from the complainant; and usurping same, had been attributed to him
Accused had not been able to point out any mala fide of complainant or the police for his alleged false implication in the case
Bail application of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.741 of 2006, dated 10-8-2006 registered 'under section 406, P.P.C. at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his brother Shahzad rented a car from the complainant for a month in presence of witnesses and thereafter, refused to return the same. Consequently, the aforementioned F.I.R. was registered against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the petitioner was false and frivolous and had been got registered on account of mala fide of the complainant with the connivance of the local police; that there was a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. which had not been explained; that the petitioner was previous non-convict and that nothing had to be recovered from him, as such, he was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner perused the F.I.R. as well as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was refused. The order reveals that on two previous occasions the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution as he had deliberately failed to appear before the Court when the same was fixed for confirmation, thus the petitioner has misused the concession of adinterim pre-arrest bail granted to him by the learned lower Court. Even on merits, the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role of obtaining the car on rent from the complainant and usurping the same has been attributed to him. The car in question was rented by the petitioner in presence of the witnesses Abdul Majeed and Tahir Shah. Further, the petitioner has not been able to point out any mala fide of the complainant or the police for his alleged false implication in the case.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition being without any force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-193/L Bail refused.