2006 PLP 1775 (MLD)
JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1775 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1775 (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 2006 PLP 1775 (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: 2006 PLP 1775 (MLD) (JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 420
Accused was behind the bars since his arrest and was no more required for further investigation
Investigation qua accused was complete
Keeping accused behind the bars, would not serve any beneficial purpose or advance the case of prosecution
Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
Petitioner Javed Iqbal through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.175, dated 9-6-2004 under section 406/420, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Chak Bedi, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is misappropriation of 800 maunds which was kept with him as trust and promised to pay Rs.3,00,000 in lieu thereof.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and falsely been implicated in this case, that there is a sufficient delay in lodging the F.I.R. which casts doubt; that the dispute between parties is of civil nature; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. 3A. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the instant petition.
4. I have considered the submission made from both the sides with help of available record.
5. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required for further investigation. Investigation qua him is complete. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose or advance the case of prosecution. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum or Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./J-24/L Bail granted.