1995 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shabbir Hussain Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17/22‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused having admitted his guilt before Trial Court, no further evidence was needed for his conviction‑‑‑More than half of the amount had already been repaid by the accused and he was still willing to pay the balance amount in instalments‑‑‑Bail granted to such an accused on merits ordinarily should not have been cancelled though he might be absent on some dates prior to submission of challan and who appeared before the Court on his own‑‑ Accused was granted bail in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17/22‑‑‑Absence of accused after obtaining bail‑‑‑At the first instance instead of recalling the bail, bail-able warrants should have been issued, unless the accused on bail was proved to have grossly misused the concession.‑‑‑[Absconder]. Muhammad Yaqoob Oureshi for the Complainant Malik Saeed Afzal Agral for the State
Judgment & Decree
These are the detailed reasons for order, dated 27‑10‑1994.
2. The petitioner was allowed post‑arrest bail on 2‑10‑1993 but the same was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 10‑1‑1994 by the learned Special Judge, Central(Lahore). The petitioner was again admitted to interim pre‑arrest bail on 20‑4‑1994 but due to non‑appearance, the interim bail granted to him was cancelled on 17‑5‑1994, hence this petition.
3. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner, in the year 1992 allegedly got Rs.97,000 from three persons (Mansha etc.) for sending them to Kuwait and to arrange their employment. The petitioner neither sent them abroad for employment nor returned the amount, therefore, committed offence under section 17/22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The petitioner on 1‑8‑1993 pleaded before the learned Special Judge that he indeed got Rs.97,000 from the three persons as alleged, he tried his level best but could not arrange their employment abroad and he himself was aggrieved person in that regard too as some one else had promised and he also agreed to return the amount. The complainant was sent for by the Court and the petitioner returned Rs.10,000 on 2‑10‑1993 in the Court and promised to pay the balance amount in equal eight instalments amounting to Rs.9,500 and first instalment was to start from 1st November, 1993. Admittedly, the petitioner so far has returned Rs.49,000.
6. The occurrence took place in the year 1992 and the F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of one year; the challan so far has not been submitted and the complaint was not made by the concerned person but by some one else, not aggrieved party. If the petitioner would have been guilty minded, neither he would have not agreed to repay the amount nor would have paid Rs.49,000 As I such, admission of the accused before a Court tantamount to confession of the offence and needs no further evidence for conviction. As more than half of the A amount has already been repaid by the accused and he is still willing to pay the amount of balance amount in instalments, the bail granted to such an accused on merits ordinarily should not be cancelled even though he may be absent on some dates prior to submission of challan and appears before the Court on his own. At the first instance, instead of recalling the bail, bail-able warrants should I, have been issued, unless it is proved that the accused on bail has grossly misused the concession.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am prima facie of the view that it is a fit case for the grant of bail. N.H.Q./M‑1906/L Bail granted.