2008 PLP 762 (YLR)
GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 762 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 762 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 762 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 762 (YLR) (GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. maximum punishment of which was only 3 years
Accused was in jail for the last two months
Dispute arose between parties on account of business transactions and in that connection civil litigation was pending between the parties before the competent court
Accused was no more required by the police and nothing was to be recovered from him
Keeping accused behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve or advance the prosecution case and it would amount to punishment before the conviction, which was not permissible under criminal jurisprudence
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Maqsood Abid Naqvi for the Petitioner. Mrs. Farzana Khan, Assistant Prosecutrix General with Muhammad Akram, A.S-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.22, dated 6-2-2007 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent in this case, that no recovery has been effected from him that it is business transaction and in this connection civil litigation is pending before the competent Court; that the petitioner is in jail for two months; that the maximum punishment for the offence is 3 years and offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutrix General has opposed the grant of bail.
4. Heard, Record perused.
5. Admittedly the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment of the offence is only 3 years. The petitioner is in jail since two months. The dispute arose on account of business transaction and in this connection civil litigation is pending between the parties before the competent Court. The petitioner is no more required by the police and nothing is to be recovered from him. Keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time will not serve or advance the prosecution case and it amounts to punishment before the conviction, which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the-like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court. H.B.T./G-77/L Bail granted.