2005 PLP 672 (YLR)
ANAYAT MASIH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 672 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J |
| Parties | ANAYAT MASIH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 672 (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 2005 PLP 672 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 672 (YLR) (ANAYAT MASIH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Akram Awan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 5th July, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17/22‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, refusal of‑‑‑Delay of about six years in lodging F.I. R., was of no significance as complainant had been making effort to get money back from the accused through different sources‑‑‑Persons before whom disputed amount was paid by the complainant to accused, in their statement made under S.161, Cr. P. C. had specifically stated fact of receiving amount by accused from complainant for sending son of complainant abroad for employment‑‑ Accused were also very much required for the recovery of case property‑‑‑Accused had failed to show any, mala fides on the part of prosecution for their false involvement in the case‑‑‑Bail application stood dismissed, in circumstances. Masood Ahmad for the Complainant. Sh. Javaid Sarfraz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Masood Ahmad for the Complainant. Sh. Javaid Sarfraz for the State. Date of hearing: 5th July, 2004. Petitioners seek pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 82 of 2004, dated 22‑2‑2004 registered under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station F.I.A., P.C. Lahore.
2. In brief the allegation against the petitioners is that they had deceitfully received Rs.5,00,000 from the complainant Capt. Farrukh Afzal on the pretext of sending his son Kamran and his relative Sohail abroad for employment. Allegedly, the said commitment was not honoured nor the amount has been returned to the complainant.
3. Bail is sought on the grounds that petitioners have been falsely involved in this case; they never received any money from the complainant as alleged in the F.I.R.; there is no witness of the payment of disputed amount to the petitioners and it is a case of no evidence; allegedly, the occurrence took place in the year 1999 but the F.I.R. was registered in the year 2004 i.e. after the delay of six years and that this delay in lodging the F.I.R. is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioners within the fold of further inquiry entitling them to the concession of bail. Conversely, learned counsel for the State as well as complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. As far the delay in lodging the F. I. R. is concerned, record of this case clearly indicates that complainant had been making efforts to get the money back though different sources and in the circumstances this delay is of no significance. Record of this case also reveals that the disputed amount was paid to the petitioners in the house of complainant in the presence of Shahid, Sajeel and Kamran. The said witnesses while making statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have specifically stated in this regard. The petitioners are also very much required for the recovery of case property. Similarly, the learned counsel has failed to show any mala fide on the part of prosecution for the false involvement on the petitioners in this case. In the light of data available .on the record, I see no force in this petition the same stands dismissed. H.B.T./A‑259/L Bail application dismissed.