2009 PLP 2136 (YLR)
ILYAS-UD-DIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2136 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C J |
| Parties | ILYAS-UD-DIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2136 (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 2009 PLP 2136 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2136 (YLR) (ILYAS-UD-DIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Scope
Submission of counsel for the complainant was that total sum due against accused was Rs. 3,00,000, but he had only deposited a sum of Rs. 2.30,000 with the Nazir of the court
Submission of counsel for accused was that after deposit of Rs. 2,30,000 with the Nazir of the court, he had paid balance amount of Rs. 70,000 by pay order/receipt and that total decretal amount based on the dishonoured cheque had been paid by accused
While dealing with pre-arrest bail application, it would not be appropriate for the court to examine whether the decree had been satisfied as a whole or still some payment towards dishonoured cheque was outstanding against accused
Interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Sathi M. Ishaque for Applicant. Javed Musarrat for the Complainant. Saleem Akhtar, Addl. P.-G., Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, C.J.--Through this bail application under section 498, Cr.P.C. applicant Illyasuddin son of Abdul Hameed, has sought pre-arrest ' bail in crime No. 349/2006 P.S. Ferozabad, Karachi East, which relates to the commission of offence punishable under section 489-F P.P.C. On the filing of his bail application, the applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated. 4-5-2007, subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P & R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court, which order has been complied. Thereafter, during the pendency of proceedings, as per mutual understanding between the applicant and the complainant, from time to time, applicant has deposited a total sum of Rs.230,000 with the Nazir of this Court towards the satisfaction of the claim of the complainant subject-matter of dishonored cheques. Mr. Javed Musarrat, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the total sum due against the applicant is Rs.300,000 but he has only deposited a sum of Rs.230,000 with the Nazir of this Court. The Receipt/pay orders of Rs.70,000 referred by the applicant for this claim of payment of remaining sum are not in connection with the present claim of the complainant, for which his suit for recovery, being Civil Suit No. 46 of 2006 instituted under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, has already been decreed. Mr. Sathi M. Ishaque learned counsel for the applicant submits that upon deposit of Rs.230,000 with the Nazir of this Court together with the payment of Rs.70,000 as per other pay orders/receipt, the total decretal amount based on the dishonoured cheque has been paid by the applicant. Be that as it may, while dealing with this pre-arrest bail application, it will not be appropriate for this Court to examine whether the decree has been satisfied as a whole or still some payment towards dishonoured cheques is outstanding against the applicant. Keeping in view this aspect of the case, interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant is confirmed and this bail application is disposed of in terms that the sum of Rs.230,000 deposited by the applicant with the Nazir of this Court be released in favour of the complainant, and in case the complainant has any other claim still unsatisfied, he will peruse the execution proceedings before the civil Court, which will be able to decide whether the decree passed in favour of complainant has been wholly satisfied or it is to be executed for any sum still due under it. H.B.T./I-14/K Bail confirmed.