2006 PLP 1925 (MLD)
Syed ISRAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1925 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed ISRAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Cole (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1925 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Cole (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1925 (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 1925 (MLD) (Syed ISRAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shahzad Aslam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419 & 420
Accused/petitioner along with co-accused approached complainant and while introducing himself as .representative of a Telecom Company enquired about plot to fix tower of company thereon
Accused, after selecting a plot demanded from complainant survey fee and 'other expenses but complainant, on becoming suspicious, handed accused over to police
Bail petition of accused was dismissed by Trial Court
Complainant did not suffer any kind of loss at the hands of accused
Offence under S.420, P.P.C. was bailable and S.419, P.P.C. was not attracted to the case of accused as it essentially involved cheating and impersonation but element of cheating was missing in the case against accused
Offences alleged against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail petition filed by accused was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.130, dated 25-3-2006 for offence under sections 420/419, P.P.C., Police Station Gulgasht, Multan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his co-accused approached the complainant who deals in the business of property and introduced himself as representative of Warid Telecom Company and enquired about a plot in order to affix tower of the company. After having selected a plot the petitioner demanded survey fee and other expenses amounting to Rs.30,000 but the complainant became suspicious whereupon the petitioner and the other co-accused were handed over to the police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. did not disclose the time of occurrence; that the offence under section 420, P.P.C. was a bailable offence whereas the provision of section 419, P.P.C. were not attracted to the case of the petitioner as no loss had been caused to the complainant by the petitioner who was behind the bars since 25-3-2006. Further contended that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was not required for any purpose by the police, hence the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not oppose the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly no time of the occurrence has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and no loss of any kind has been caused to the complainant by the petitioner. Section 420, P.P.C. is a bailable offence whereas provisions of section 419, P.P.C. are not attracted to the case of the petitioner as it essentially involves cheating and impersonation and the element of cheating is missing. As the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is behind the bars since 25-3-2006, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail particularly in view of the fact that the same is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
7. Resultantly, the petitioner is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.M.B./I-45/L Bail petition allowed.