2005 P Cr (PLP)
ASIM WAQAR DOGAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASIM WAQAR DOGAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 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 2005 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: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (ASIM WAQAR DOGAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fayyaz Ahmad Mehr for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17 & 22
No independent evidence had been collected by Investigating Agency in case apart from mere oral statements of complainant and his witnesses
Nothing had been recovered from possession of accused during investigation of the case
Background of a business dispute existed between parties arising out of dissolution of a partnership and in that backdrop, false implication of accused could not be ruled out of consideration
investigation of case had already been completed qua accused and an incomplete challan had already been submitted before Trial Court
Physical custody of accused was no longer required for purpose of investigation
Alleged payment of money had been made by complainant to accused at a time when parties were already engaged in winding up of their partnership on account of serious differences
Handing over of huge amount of money by complainant to accused at such a stage for sending complainant abroad, appeared to be prima facie improbable
Factual controversy between parties required elaborate evidence to be recorded by Trial Court in that regard and that stage had not so far arrived in the case
Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition Asim Waqar Dogar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.489 registered at Police Station F.I.A., Passport Circle, Lahore on 7-10-2003 for offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that no independent evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency in this case apart from mere oral statements of the complainant and his witnesses. Admittedly nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. Paragraphs Nos.4 and 5 of the order, dated 21-1-2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore show that there was a background of a business dispute between the parties arising out of dissolution of a partnership. In that backdrop false implication of the petitioner may not be ruled out of consideration at such a stage. The investigation of this case has already been completed qua the petitioner and an incomplete challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. It is interesting to mention here that the alleged payment of money had been made by the complainant to the petitioner on 5-12-2002 at a time when the parties to this case were already engaged in winding up of their partnership on account of serious differences and, thus, handing over of a huge amount of money by the complainant to the petitioner at such a stage for sending the complainant abroad appears to be prima facie improbable. Be that as it may, the factual controversy A between the parties requires elaborate evidence to be recorded by the learned trial Court in that regard and that stage has not so far arrived in this case.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-509/L Bail granted.