2005 PLP 1021 (MLD)
Rao MUHAMMAD AYAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji ABDUL MAJEED and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1021 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | Rao MUHAMMAD AYAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji ABDUL MAJEED and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1021 (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 2005 PLP 1021 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1021 (MLD) (Rao MUHAMMAD AYAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji ABDUL MAJEED and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Raheem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489‑F‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Cheque of Rs.4,00,000 issued by the accused to the complainant had been dishonoured by the Bank‑‑‑Parties had initially started joint business which culminated in civil litigation between them‑‑‑Dispute between the parties was about rendition of accounts‑‑‑Sessions Court had released the accused on bail as the offence allegedly committed by him was bailable ‑‑‑Dispute between the parties being of civil nature, order granting bail to accused did not call for any interference‑‑‑Petition was dismissed accordingly. Malik M.R. Khalid, Addl. A.‑G.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Muhammad Raheem for Petitioner. Malik M.R. Khalid, Addl. A.‑G. Through this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21‑12‑2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Haji Abdul Majeed‑respondent No.1 in case F.I.R. No. 464 of 2004, dated 9‑12‑2004 under section 489‑F, P.P.C. at Police Station City Lodhran.
2. Brief facts according to the F.I.R. are that respondent No.1 issued a cheque amounting to Rs.4,00,000 to the petitioner, which was later on dishonoured by the National Bank of Pakistan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail granting order is arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with law and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the pre‑arrest bail of the respondent No.1/accused in his order dated 21‑12‑2004 has not discussed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further submits that there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of offence as alleged in the F.I.R. That the recovery of alleged amount is yet to be recovered from the accused. Furthermore, that reasonable ground to believe is that he is prima facie involved in the case and the basic requirement for the grant of bail has not been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Learned Law Officer vehemently opposed the instant petition on the ground that the respondent No.1 has not misused the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Case of the parties is that admittedly both the parties started joint business and obtained loan from Habib Bank Ltd. It is admitted fact that petitioner had filed a suit for cancellation of document, which is pending in the civil Court and documents tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner reveal that a dispute between the parties is about rendition of account and further according to the finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge the offence allegedly committed by respondent No.1 is bailable in nature, therefore, he confirmed that bail already granted to petitioner. As the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. I am not inclined to interfere with the bail granting order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Instant petition is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑910/L Petition dismissed