2011 PLP 1599 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD NAEEM PARACHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1599 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Javaid, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAEEM PARACHA — 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 2011 PLP 1599 (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 2011 PLP 1599 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Javaid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1599 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD NAEEM PARACHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/ 467/ 468/ 471
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Cheating, forgery, using as genuine a forged document and illegal gratification--Bail, grant of
No specific allegation had been made against accused, who was a petition writer
Forgery on the deed in question did not resemble with handwriting of accused; nor it had been shown the benefit he was likely to get out of the alleged forgery
Case appeared to be that of further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Tanveer Haider Buzdar, DDPP for the State.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ JAVAID, J.
Muhammad Naeem Paracha, petitioner, through this petition seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.3 dated 2-2-2008, offence under sections 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khanewal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is petition writer by profession and the alleged forgery is not in his handwriting; that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged forged documents; that no recovery is effected from him and he is behind the bars since 3-8-2009; that keeping the petitioner behind the bars shall serve no useful purpose to the prosecution.
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has maintained that the petitioner is accomplice and he does not deserve any leniency of concession of bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. No specific allegation has been made against the petitioner who is petition writer. Admittedly, the forgery on the deed does not resemble with handwriting of the petitioner nor it has been shown any benefit he was likely to get out of the alleged forgery. It appears to be a case of further inquiry.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-38/L Bail granted.