2002 PLP 1705 (MLD)
M.A. ANWAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1705 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | M.A. ANWAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1705 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1705 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1705 (MLD) (M.A. ANWAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Sohail Dar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/467/468/471‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused remained on physical remand for about 10 days, but alleged misappropriated amount had not been recovered from his possession‑‑ Offence against accused did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and S.467, P.P.C. prima facie was not attracted to the case of accused‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for the Complainant. Muhammad Azam for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. A. Anwar son of Shaukat Hussain Shah seeks post‑arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 62 of 2001 dated 12‑4‑2001 under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Shadman, Lahore on the application of Sardar Roshan Ali with 'the allegation that the petitioner alongwith his co‑accused Karamat Ullah were his employees at Allied Motor Workshop established by the complainant and they misappropriated amount after receiving from the customers by depositing the cheques in secret account which was being operated by the accused. The accused also got letter pad printed and wrote to different customers to issue cheques for outstanding amounts in the name of Allied Auto Workshop established by them, instead of Allied Motor Workshop and defrauded the complainant and. his customers. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 15‑9‑2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the investigation it has been found that the petitioner and his co‑accused were partners in the workshop with the complainant and the remedy of the complainant lies by filing a civil suit for rendition of accounts. The petitioner has been implicated in the criminal case falsely; that during the investigation petitioner has been declared innocent and that the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause. Conversely the bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. Heard. Record perused. The petitioner was arrested on 15‑4‑2001 and remained on physical remand for about 10 days and was sent in judicial lock‑up on 26‑4‑2001 and the alleged misappropriated amount has not been recovered from his possession. The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause. Section 467, P.P.C. prima facie is not attracted against the petitioner, therefore, I am persuaded to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1204/L Bail granted.