2007 PLP 3121 (YLR)
BAQIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3121 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Shamim, J |
| Parties | BAQIR HUSSAIN — 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 3121 (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 3121 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Shamim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3121 (YLR) (BAQIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner 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
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Complainant present in the court had affirmed that a compromise had been effected between the parties and had acknowledged having entered into an agreement with accused, a copy of which had been placed on record
Since complainant was not inclined to prosecute the matter, High Court could not force him to do so
Deputy Prosecutor General having also not opposed the bail petition, same was allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail- granted to accused, was confirmed. Malik Muhammad Arif Bara along with Agha Intizar Ali Imran for Complainant. Ch. Amjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State along with Ijaz Ali, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R No. 145 of 2007 dated 24-3-2007, for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Chung, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have given two cheques to the complainant which when presented to the Bank for encashment were dishonoured.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has contended that a compromise has been effected between the parties and, therefore, ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner merits to be confirmed. He has placed on record a copy of the agreement duly executed between the parties.
4. The complainant is present in Court with his learned counsel who affirms the factum of compromise having been effected with the accused. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has no objection if the .bail of the petitioner is confirmed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The complainant is present in Court who affirms that a compromise has been effected between the parties and has acknowledged having entered into an agreement with the accused, a copy of which has been placed on record. Since the complainant is not inclined to prosecute this matter, therefore, this Court cannot force him to do so. As the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has also not opposed the petition, therefore, this petition is allowed and- the ad interim pre arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22-6-2007 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./B-30/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.