2007 PLP 1264 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AKMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1264 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKMAL KHAN — 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 1264 (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 2007 PLP 1264 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1264 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AKMAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Bilal Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.468, 471, 420 & 489-F
F.I.R. lodged with delay of four years
Litigation existed between parties
Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he along with co-accused told complainant that on payment of certain amount government land would be allotted in his favour
Complainant alleged in F.I.R. that despite payment of amount to accused, no land was got allotted to him, and when matter was reported to Punchayat accused gave to complainant cheques which were later on' dishonoured
Complainant further alleged that accused also issued forged receipt of bank to him about depositing of money regarding allotment of land in his favour
Post-arrest bail of accused was dismissed by Trial Court
Accused contended that there was delay of four years in lodging of F.I.R.; that there was no signature on cheques and allotment letter allegedly issued in favour of complainant and also on receipt of bank; that complainant himself was involved in case registered under S. 489-F, P.P.C.
F.I.R. had been lodged against accused and co-accused after delay of four years and offence under Ss.468, 471 & 420, P.P.C. had been added later on
Offence under Ss.468 & 471, P.P.C. were non -cognizable
Receipts allegedly issued by bank did not bear signature of accused
Offences alleged against accused under Ss.468, 471 & 420, P.P.C. did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Complainant himself was involved in case registered under S.489-F, P.P.C. which showed that there was litigation between parties
Sufficient reasons were available to believe false involvement of accused in commission of offence which brought his case within ambit of further inquiry
Pre-arrest bail of co-accused had been confirmed by High Court, hence, rule of consistency was attracted to case of accused as his case was at par with the co-accused
Detention of accused for indefinite period was not to serve any useful purpose
Accused/petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail. Muhammad Bukhsh Complainant in person. Ch. Muhammad Akbar for the State with Shabbir Hussain, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.158 of 2005 dated 20-7-2005 registered at Police Station Jalilabad, Multan for an offence under sections 468/471/420/489-F, P.P.C.
2. As per F.I.R., the facts of the casein brief are; that the petitioner along with his co-accused namely Muhammad Ashraf, Ajmal Khan, Ahmad Nawaz came to the complainant and told him that Government landed property is present in Bahawalpur District and asked him that if he will pay Rs.5,89,050 then they will get allotted that property to him. The complainant paid the said amount to the accused in shape of cash, tractor: and agricultural instruments to all the accused. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that despite making payment to the accused the said landed property was not got allotted to the complainant and when he contacted accused with regard to re-payment of his money they refused to re-pay the same. Subsequently, the matter was reported to Punchaiat where the accused gave the disputed cheques to the complainant, which were later on dishonoured. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused also issued a forged receipt of National Bank of Pakistan, Bahawalpur Branch to the complainant about depositing of Rs.1,60,000 regarding the allotment of above mentioned landed property.
3. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide his order dated 15-6-2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of four years in lodging of the F.I.R. for which no plausible explanation has been narrated in the F.I.R. The case has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of mala fide of the police as well as complainant. Firstly the case was registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. but later on with mala fide intention sections 468/471/420, P.P.C. have been added. Further stated that complainant himself has issued two Cheques bearing No. 09037776 dated 17-3-2003 and 32878506 dated 2-4-2002 valuing Rs.2,00,000 each respectively to the petitioner in the presence of the witnesses which had not been encashed. Under the direction of the Court, F.I.R. No.439 of 2005 dated 19-10-2005 has been registered at Police Station Gulgasht, Multan against the complainant. He has forcefully contended that there is no signature on the cheques, allotment letter allegedly issued by the Collector and also deposit receipt in the National Bank.
5. The grant of bail has vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well as complainant.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly there is delay of four years in lodging of the F.I.R. against the petitioner and other co-accused. Offence under sections 468/471/420 have been added later on. Offence under sections 468/471 are non-cognizable. Both the receipts of National Bank showing deposit of Rs.1,60,000 allegedly deposited by the petitioner has not been produced, which also does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The offences are not covered within the prohibition as contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. Pre-arrest bail of the co-accused Muhammad Ashraf has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 26-1-2006. Principle of consistency is attracted to this case as the case of the petitioner is at par with the co-accused. It is also an admitted fact that there is litigation between the parties. The complainant is also involved in the case F.I.R. No.439 of 2005 dated 19-10-2005 registered under section 489-F. There are sufficient reasons to believe false involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence which bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail for an indefinite period. The petitioner is no more required by the police.
6. For the fore-going reasons and without prejudicing the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac), with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Area/Duty Magistrate concerned. S.M.B./M-579/L Bail granted.