2010 PLP 2064 (YLR)
ABDUL QADEER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2064 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmed Malik, J |
| Parties | ABDUL QADEER — 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 2010 PLP 2064 (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 2010 PLP 2064 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmed Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2064 (YLR) (ABDUL QADEER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/468/471
Prosecution's plea was that accused being beneficiary of forged document would be presumed to have prepared the same
Neither original document nor any evidence was available on record to show that accused had prepared said document
Question, whether or not accused had prepared forged document, could be decided by Trial Court only after recording of evidence
Offences under Ss. 420 & 471, P.P.C. being bailable, whereas offence under S. 468, P.P.C. did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail. M.M. Alam Chaudhry, Addl. Prosecutor-General. Arif, A.S-I with record.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
Abdul Qadeer petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.148/2009 dated 12-10-2009 offences under sec tions 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Cantt. Kharian, District Gujrat. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he produced a forged status quo order before the Police.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that no forgery has been committed by the petitioner and the story has been fabricated to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case; that the petitioner did not produce the alleged forged document before the Police and even in this connection there is no evidence with the prosecution.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposes this bail application on the ground that petitioner was real beneficiary of the alleged forged document, therefore, it can safely be inferred that he had prepared the document and that he had produced the document before the Police.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Allegation against the petitioner is that he produced a forged document. A specific question was asked from the learned Additional Prosecutor-General whether there is any evidence available with the prosecution that the petitioner prepared the document so as to attract the provisions of section 468, P.P.C, answer was in the negative except the petitioner is the beneficiary, therefore, it would be presumed that he had prepared the document. Offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bailable. Even the original document is not on the file, therefore, the question whether or not the petitioner prepared the forged document, can only be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence. Even section 468, P.P.C. falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. S.A.K./A-129/L Bail granted.