2002 PLP 1327 (SCMR)
TANWEER AHMED HARAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1327 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | TANWEER AHMED HARAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1327 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1327 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1327 (SCMR) (TANWEER AHMED HARAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20‑11‑2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4350/B of 2001). ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/468/471/476/406/109‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation in F.I.R. against accused was that when application of co‑accused for grant of finance facility was under process of approval by complainant‑Bank, accused obtained letter of guarantee from ABN Amro Bank, whereupon finance facility was sanctioned and amount of 208.00 million was withdrawn; and that letter of guarantee was later on found to be forged and fabricated‑‑ Accused had been found fully implicated in the case during investigation as he had personally encashed the cheques issued to withdraw said amount of facility‑‑‑No case for grant of pre‑arrest bail to accused was made out‑‑ Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 20‑11‑2001 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's post‑arrest bail application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.4350‑B of 2001 was dismissed. The fact briefly stated for the disposal of this petition for that F.I.R. No. 131 of 2001 was registered against the petitioner on 16‑3‑2001 with Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore, under sections 420/468/471/467/406/109, P.P.C. at the instance of Muhammad Idrees, Manager, Emirates Bank International (EBI), Egerton ,Road, Lahore. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are to the effect that Naeem‑ud‑Din Qammar and his brother Shahid‑ud‑Din Jauhar Sahaf, Zeeshan Murtaza, Muhammad Saleem Khan and Arif Moaz Shah (a customer of the Bank) approached Mr. Farrukh Karamat, Branch Manager, EBI and Mr. Ashfaq Gulraiz, Manager Trade Services for finance facility in respect of a new company to be incorporated in the name of Heimtex Decur (Pvt.) Limited. Their application was processed and approved by the Head Office, whereupon the petitioner went to ABN Amro Bank to receive letter of guarantee of Rs.208 million. EBI approved the finance facility of aforesaid company and amount of Rs.208 million was withdrawn. However; subsequently it came to surface that financial guarantee was forged and fabricated, whereupon the above F.I.R. was recorded. The case was thoroughly investigated and. the petitioner was found fully implicated therein. It has also come on record during the course of investigation that the petitioner divulged the confidential opinion of EBI to Naeem‑ud-Din co‑accused which was addressed to ABN Amro Bank respecting this guarantee. It has further been noticed that Cheques issued to withdraw the aforesaid amount on the basis of forged finance facility were personally got encahsed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, no case for grant of post‑arrest bail to the petitioner is made out. The present petition being without any force is dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./T‑26/S Leave refused.