2007 PLP 1380 (YLR)
Mirza MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1380 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | Mirza MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1380 (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 2007 PLP 1380 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1380 (YLR) (Mirza MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406-Pre-arrest-bail, confirmation of--Record had shown that accused had not tampered with any document, but had put his signature on the receipt for the verification of a person who had sold vehicle
From the bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appeared that dispute was of civil nature between the parties for the purchase and sale of vehicle, which had been converted into criminal offence
No evidence was available on record that accused had committed any breach of trust with the complainant
Sending of accused to jail would not advance prosecution case any more as nothing was to be recovered from him, who admittedly was not beneficiary of alleged fraud committed with the complainant
Even otherwise delay of about 3-months in the registration of F.I.R., was very significant and possibility of false implication of accused, could not be ruled out
Pre-arrest bail, already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Naeem Tariq Sanghera, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Ikram, A.S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Through this application under section 498, Cr.P,C. Mirza Muhammad Ramzan the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.337 of 2006, dated 13-3-2006, registered under section 406, P.P.C. at Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, on the application of Sohail Ahmad, the complainant.
2. According to the facts of the FIR., the petitioner along with the co-accused had committed breach of trust in the wake of managing transfer of Car bearing Registration No.LOD-4203 owned by the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had allegedly put his signature on the receipt and identified Asad Shah when he received an amount of Rs.69,000 but the petitioner did not tamper with any document and no such document has so far been taken into possession by the police; that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to suspicion; that there was dispute of civil nature between the co-accused and the complainant, which has been converted into criminal offence with mala fide intention; that even otherwise, the petitioner is not connected with the offence in any manner as he was not beneficiary of the alleged transaction and he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State has opposed this bail petition.
5. From the perusal of record, it shows that the petitioner had not tampered with any document and such receipt had not been received from his possession by the police. He had only put his signature on the receipt for the identification of Asad Shah, who had sold the vehicle to one Ramzan. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that there was dispute of civil nature between the parties for the purchase and sale of the vehicle, which has been converted into criminal offence. For the time being, there is no evidence on the record that the petitioner had committed any breach of trust with the complainant. The sending of the petitioner to jail will not advance the prosecution case any more as nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, who admittedly was not beneficiary of the alleged fraud committed with the complainant. Even otherwise, there was delay of about 3 months in the registration of the FIR., which is very significant and possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. For the foregoing reason; the instant bail petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-163/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.