2010 PLP 2685 (YLR)
ABDUL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2685 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sahrif, C.J. |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2685 (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 2010 PLP 2685 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sahrif, C.J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2685 (YLR) (ABDUL GHAFFAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F--Dishonestly issuing a cheque
Accused remained on physical remand for 12 days and only cheque was recovered from him which allegedly had been bounced
Separate case under S.489-F, P.P.C. could be registered against accused by the complainant
Counsel for accused had stated that other cases against the accused had been discharged
If the statement of counsel for accused was found to be false, complainant could move for cancellation of bail
No useful purpose could be served to detain accused in jail
Case of accused being of further inquiry falling under sub-clause (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances. Adeel Aqil Mirza, D.P.-G. along with Ali Sher, S.-I. Muhammad Yasin Hatif for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner along with two brothers has been falsely implicated in this case; that in fact there was an agreement between the petitioner and the ' complainant; that no offence as mentioned in the F.I.R. has been committed by the petitioner; that petitioner was arrested on 4-9-2009; that he was on physical remand for 12 days and only a cheque was recovered; that no cash amount was recovered from him; that as far as two other cases of dacoity against the petitioner is concerned, in both the cases learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that he has been discharged and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand learned D.P.-G. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that he is named in the F.I.R.; that his two brothers are behind the bars; that he was taken into custody from jail where he was confined in an other cases of robbery which were taken place prior to this occurrence; that cheque of Rs.300,000 was given by the petitioner which was bounced; that he is desperate criminal and bail petition should be dismissed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner remained on physical remand for 12 days and only cheque was recovered from him which according to learned counsel for the complainant has been bounced. A separate case under section 489-F, P.P.C. can be registered against him by the complainant. As far as two other cases of robbery prior to this occurrence are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that in both the cases he has been discharged. In case statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be false, the complainant can move for cancellation of bail. As far as present case is concerned, no useful purpose can be served to detain him further in jail. In this view of the matter, case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under sub-clause 2 of sec tion 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy' Registrar (J) of this Court. H.B.T./A-47/L Bail granted.