2010 PLP 1422 (MLD)
QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN QURESHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1422 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN QURESHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1422 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1422 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1422 (MLD) (QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN QURESHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Alamdar Hussain Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
No ulterior motive or mala fide was found on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate accused in the case
Cheque in question had been returned to the complainant by the Bank due to insufficient funds in the account of accused
Bank had not stated that signatures of accused were forged one
Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest, were totally different
No case for bail before arrest having been made out, bail petition stood dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the complainant was an employee of the petitioner; that complainant stole the cheque, filled the same and then submitted in the bank; that concocted and false story has been given in the F.I.R,; that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that three co-accused named in the F.I.R. have been declared innocent; that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub clause 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. and he is entitled to bail.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that complainant present in court can state on oath that he never knew the petitioner prior to this bargain; that this is bail before arrest and considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. He has relied upon PLD 2006 Lahore 302, 2007 YLR 309, 2008 YLR 760 and 2009 PCr.LJ 825.
3. Learned DPG adds that in fact the cheque was not dishonoured by the bank but it was stated that the funds are insufficient in the account of the petitioner and bank never objected that the signatures of the petitioner are forged one. 3-A. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no ulterior motive or mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. The cheque in question has been returned to the complainant by the bank due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. It was never stated by the bank that signatures of the petitioner are forged one. This is bail before arrest and considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. No case for bail before arrest is made out. This petition stands dismissed. H.B.T./Q-2/L Bail refused.