2007 P Cr (PLP)
NASEER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASEER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (NASEER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafique Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Bail before arrest, refusal of
Accused was named in F.I.R. and he was marginal witness of agreement to sell, which was not even written on a stamp paper
No mala fide was shown on the part of complainant
Police had authority to investigate the matter relating to non-cognizable offence
Even otherwise Investigating Officer had taken permission of investigation from Illaqa Magistrate
Co-accused were allowed bail as no allegation was found against them
Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest were totally different
No ease for bail before arrest having been made out, petition for bail was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
Learned counsel submits that offences are non-cognizable, that petitioner is only the marginal witness, that now said agreement to sell has been handed over to the police, that petitioner has been falsely implicated, nothing is to be recovered, that in fact no offence is made out and this Court has already quashed the proceedings on the basis of such-like offences and in this regard, he has relied upon 2006 PCr.LJ 906 and PLD 2003 Lah. 228.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. that Abdul Hameed father-in-law of the petitioner was tenant under the complainant, that on blank paper agreement to sell had been made, that no receipt was issued by the complainant for receiving Rs.3,70,000, that police has also got permission for investigation from learned Illaqa Magistrate. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a case titled as Sanaullah v. S.H.O. Police Station, Civil Lines, Gujrat and 3 others PLD 2003 Lah. 228, wherein it was held that police can investigate non-cognizable offence, along with cognizable offence whether permitted or not.
3. Heard. Petitioner is named in the F.I.R. As far as two co-accused, who were allowed bail by this Court are concerned, according to the F.I.R. there was no allegation against them. So far as, petitioner is concerned, he is the marginal witness of agreement to sell, which was not even written on stamp paper, there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant, police had the authority to investigate the matter relating to non-cognizable offence in view of the judgment passed by this Court in a case titled as Sanaullah v. S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat and 3 others PLD 2003 Lah. 228, even otherwise the Investigating Officer had taken the permission of investigation from learned Illaqa Magistrate. One should keep in mind, this is a bail before arrest and considerations for the grant for bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./N-121/L Bail refused.