PCRLJ 2010

2010 P Cr (PLP)

IJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2009-September-24
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties IJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 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 2010 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: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (IJAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Asif Chouhan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(5)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F

Dishonouring of cheque

Bail, cancellation of-Principles-Impugned bail granting order was well reasoned based on convincing grounds

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and maximum punishment of the offence was three years

Once the bail was allowed by the Trial Court, special/extraordinary circumstances were required for cancellation of the same

No special circumstances were found in the case which necessitated withdrawal of concession of bail granted to accused by the Trial Court

No evidence was available on record to the effect that accused had misused the concession Of bail

Mere assertion of complainant that accused had misused the concession of bail, was not sufficient to withdraw the concession of bail

Except the complainant's own affidavit, no other or any independent witness was brought before whom threats were extended to the petitioner/ complainant

It might be just personal whim and wishful thinking of the petitioner/complainant that bail should be cancelled

No evidence was on record or any affidavit of independent witnesses that accused made any efforts to destroy the evidence

Bail granting order could not be interfered with, in circumstances

Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner, namely, Ijaz Hussain son of Zafar Hussain seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 13-8-2009 in case F.I.R. No.658 of 2009, registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore, under section 489-F, P.P.C. at the instance of Ejaz Hussain son of Zafar Hussain, complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2, Mushtaq Ahmad son of Umar Din is misusing the concession of bail by extending threats to the petitioner of dire consequences and tried to destroy the evidence; learned trial Court while granting the bail had not given cogent reason; that during the investigation respondent was found guilty and the learned trial Court has ignored that offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is not bailable. He prays for cancellation of the bail of the respondent.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the bail granting order, dated 13-8-2009.

4. Impugned order is well-reasoned based on convincing grounds. Offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the maximum punishment of the offence is three years. Once the bail allowed by the learned trial Court, for cancellation of the same, special/extraordinary circumstances are required to withdraw the same. In the instant petition, there are no special circumstances which necessitate withdrawal of concession of bail granted to respondent, Mushtaq Ahmad by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is not an iota of evidence on record that respondent misused the concession of bail, mere assertion of the complainant is not sufficient to withdraw the said concession of bail allowed by the learned trial Court, on record except the complainant's own affidavit there is no other affidavit of any independent witness before whom threats were extended to the petitioner. It might be just personal whim and wishful thinking of the petitioner/complainant that the bail should be cancelled of the respondent. Further there is no evidence on record or any affidavit of the independent witnesses that respondent made any efforts to destroy the evidence.

5. I am not inclined to interfere in the bail granting order dated 13-8-2009 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Lahore.

6. Resultantly, the instant petition for cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of Criminal Procedure Code is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B:T./I-94/L Petition dismissed.