2010 PLP 1063 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1063 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1063 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1063 (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: 2010 PLP 1063 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Wasim Shahab for Petitioner.
- Ashfaq Ahmed Malik, D.P.-G. for Respondent No. 1 / for the State.
- Muhammad Aslam for Respondent No2.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Accused was behind the bars for the last five months
Accused was not a previous convict
Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal an exception
Case of accused having become of bail, he could not be deprived of his liberty simply for the reason that he had remained an absconder
Factum of alleged absondence of accused was not an exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of relief of bail to him
Bail was allowed to accused accordingly.
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Case not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
General rule
Where the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception.
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Effect
When case of an accused becomes of bail, then he cannot be deprived of his liberty simply because he had remained an absconder.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.
Petitioner Muhammad Riaz through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.445 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. with Police Station Tulamba, District Khanewal on 19-10-2008.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that Muhammad Riaz (petitioner) owed an amount of Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant in respect of gold articles purchased by him from him (complainant) and he in lieu thereof issued him cheque, dated 1-9-2008, drawn on HBL Tulamba Branch, which ,on presentation could not be enchased. Hence, the case.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is stated to be behind the bars since 8-4-2009. This period is spared over about five months. He is also stated to be previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
4. The fact also remains that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the case of "Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34), it has been held that grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal an exception.
5. It has been argued by the prosecution side that he had remained a proclaimed offender and this is an exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of relief to him. I may say here in this regard that if case of an accused, when may otherwise, become of bail, he then cannot be deprived of his liberty simply for the reason that he had remained an absconder. It has been explained by his side that he has not absconded and in fact had remained in his house and the proceedings showing him to be so are fictitious. In view of this explanation, I do not find the factum of his alleged absconsion to be an exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of relief to him.
6. In view of these circumstances, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. N.H.Q. /M-770/L Bail granted.