2011 P Cr (PLP)
ASAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Hassan Raza Pasha, J |
| Parties | ASAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 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 2011 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Hassan Raza Pasha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 P Cr (PLP) (ASAD ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tanveer Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Accused who had not denied the issuance of cheques in question, had stated that the cheques were given in a business transaction as a guarantee; and major part of amount had been paid, but no proof of payment or any business transaction had been brought on record
Cheques were dishonoured due to lack of funds and accused knowingly that he had no balance in the account, issued the cheques, so had defrauded the complainant
Offence with which accused had been charged, though did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P. C., but the grant of bail to accused in every case not hit by the prohibitory clause, was not a rule of universal application, because each case had to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances
Accused being not entitled to grant of bail, his bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Kh. Sohail Iqbal, D.P.-G. and Khaleeq Ahmad, A.S.-I for the State.
Judgment & Decree
HASSAN RAZA PASHA, I.
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 92 dated 15-1-2010 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at police station Waris Khan Rawalpindi.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he issued two cheques for the amount of Rs.250,000 each to the complainant, which were dishonoured on presentation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are wrong, baseless and based on ulterior motive. There was a business relationship between the parties and the petitioner issued the cheques as a guarantee and even the complainant has already received the major part of the amount of cheques but despite of payment the complainant has refused to return the alleged cheques. It is further contended that case of petitioner is one of further inquiry and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that issuance of cheques is not denied so the mala fide on the part of petitioner is quite clear and he is not entitled to bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record shows that petitioner has not denied the issuance of cheques. However he has stated that the cheques were given in a business transaction as a guarantee and major part of amount has been paid but no proof of any payment or any business transaction has been brought on record. The cheques were dishonoured due to lack of funds and petitioner knowingly that he has no balance in the account issued the cheques so has defrauded the complainant. It is true that offence with which the petitioner has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. yet the grant of bail to an accused in every case not hit by the prohibitory clause is not a rule of universal application because each case has to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, petitioner is not entitled to bail. As such the instant petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A-257 Bail refused.