2007 P Cr (PLP)
Dr. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AZAM — Petitioner Versus ARIF ALI and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Dr. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AZAM — Petitioner Versus ARIF ALI and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 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 2007 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: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (Dr. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AZAM — Petitioner Versus ARIF ALI and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Rafique-IV for Petitioner.
- M.M. Alam for Respondent No.1.
- Ms. Bushra Qamar for Respondent No.2.
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that it was Aril Ali who had identified Tasleem Khan; that he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant Dr. Muhammad Ramzan; that he is the main culprit and introduced Muhammad Saeed as Tasleem Khan who was actual owner of the plot.
- 4. Learned counsel for respondent Arif Ali submits that Arif Ali had issued a cheque but he had not received any amount; that he had issued the cheque as security; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and cancellation of bail are totally different. He has relied upon PLD 2002 Lah. 164 and adds that respondent had not misused the concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497(5) & 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 489-F
No role whatsoever was attributed to co-accused in whole of the F.I.R. and investigation
Application for cancellation of bail filed by petitioner/complainant to the extent of co-accused, was dismissed
Prosecution evidence revolved around accused who was main culprit in the case
Accused went to petitioner/complainant and asked him to purchase plot in question by introducing another co-accused as actual owner of plot in question
Accused was the person who had issued cheque to complainant, but when complainant went to get said cheque encashed, he was told by the Bank that account of accused had been closed
Accused was granted bail before arrest
Consideration for grant of bail before arrest was totally different from bail after arrest
Trial Court had granted bail to said accused on surmises and conjectures
No case for grant of bail before arrest having been made out to the extent of accused, application for cancellation of bail to his extent was accepted and bail granting order was recalled accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
This is application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents in connivance with each other had committed fraud with the petitioner; that actual owner of the plot Tasleem Khan was never produced; that bogus identity card of Tasleem Khan was produced; that bogus persons were produced in order to commit fraud; that Arif Ali, Salta Bhatti and Bootey Shah came together to the complainant and asked him to purchase the plot; that cheque which was issued by Arif Ali was dishonoured; that now Saeed Ahmad has been arrested who posed himself as Tasleem Khan who had died in Saudi Arabia; that Bootey Shah is still at large; that Tahir who in fact had allegedly purchased the plot from Tasleem Khan, he after getting ad interim bail had disappeared; that this is a bail before arrest; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different and that no case for bail before arrest is made out.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that it was Aril Ali who had identified Tasleem Khan; that he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant Dr. Muhammad Ramzan; that he is the main culprit and introduced Muhammad Saeed as Tasleem Khan who was actual owner of the plot.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Arif Ali submits that Arif Ali had issued a cheque but he had not received any amount; that he had issued the cheque as security; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and cancellation of bail are totally different. He has relied upon PLD 2002 Lah. 164 and adds that respondent had not misused the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for Sana Bhatti submits that there is no allegation whatsoever on the record to connect Sana Bhatti with the alleged offence.
6. Heard. First of all I will take up the case of Sana Bhatti. He for the first time went to Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Azam complainant along with Bootey Shah and Tahir so no role whatsoever is attributed to him in whole of the F.I.R. and in whole of investigation. As far as bail granted to him is concerned, that should remain intact. This application to his extent is dismissed.
7. As far as Arif Ali respondent is concerned, all the prosecution evidence revolves around him. He is the main culprit in this case. He is the person who went to Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Azam complainant. He is the person who had issued the cheque. He is the person who stated that Tahir is his maternal-uncle and he had purchased the plot from Tasleem Khan. Tahir has been arrested. He is the person who had issued the cheque of Rs.8,00,000 to the complainant but later on when the complainant went to have the said money, it was told by the Bank Authority that his account has been closed. If Arif Ali was innocent, till today neither he nor Tahir who had got ad interim bail had filed suit against Saeed Ahmad. Arif Ali had not filed any application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. for registration of the case against Saeed Ahmad. In fact they are conniving with each other in this fraud. This is bail before arrest. Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after are totally different. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on surmises and conjectures had granted bail before arrest to the respondents. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no case for bail before arrest is made out to the extent of Arif Ali respondent. This petition to his extent is accepted and bail granting order is hereby recalled. H.B.T./M-682/L Order accordingly.