1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl-i-Mahmood, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl-i-Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Virk for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471--Bail, grant of--Accused presenting forged and fabricated receipts in defence of suit for Batai by their landlord--Receipts found forged and fabricated by Finger Prints Expert--Accused involved in number of cases--Bail though not to be withheld as punishment yet circumstance of criminal tendencies of accused and his indulging in criminal exercise after obtaining bail from Courts, held, would be relevant circumstance to put Courts on caution and withhold bail--Bail refused in circumstances. Muhammad Rafiq for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Irshad Ahmad Virk for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafiq for the State. Bail is sought on the ground that the petitioner is charged with an offence under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 56, dated 17-2-1986 registered with Police Station Saddar, Jhang which are not punishable with more than seven years' imprisonment.
2. The learned counsel has argued in support of the bail application that he was not the scribe of the forged documents nor was a signatory thereto and the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It is complained that the petitioner is in jail for the last five months.
3. The Investigating Officer is present with the record. He has given a list of the cases registered against the petitioner which are still pending trial. These cases are: F.I.R. No. 149, dated 17-6-1978 P.S. Saddar Jhang under section 363/366/376, P.P.C.; F.I.R. No. 444, dated 18-12-1977, P.S. Saddar Jhang under section 411, P.P.C.; F.I.R. No. 274, dated 13-11-1974 P.S. Saddar Jhang under section 411, P.P.C.; F.I.R. 444, dated 18-11-1977 P.S. Saddar Jhang under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
4. The number and nature of the cases registered shows that the petitioner since the last several years has been involved in all these criminal cases. It is true that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment but it is equally true that bail is not to be granted to let loose people with criminal tendencies on the society and in my view it would be a relevant circumstance to be looked at that if a petitioner after having obtained concession of bail from the Courts is indulging repeatedly in a criminal exercise then the Court must be put on caution and the bail withheld.
5. The Investigating Officer further states that the petitioner and his brother were the tenants of land and when the landlord had filed a suit for recovery of the Batai from them, they presented these forged and fabricated receipts in defence. These were sent to the Finger-prim Bureau and the opinion of the Finger-print Expert shows that they were forged and fabricated receipts.
6. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. The bail application accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. S.A./765/L Bail refused.