1990 PLP 1194 (SCMR)
JAVED IQBAL AWAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1194 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa. JJ |
| Parties | JAVED IQBAL AWAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1194 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1194 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1194 (SCMR) (JAVED IQBAL AWAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.A.Sidiqui, Deputy Attorney‑General and Ch. M. Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 29‑5‑1989 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.154‑B of 1989 and Writ Petition No.97 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406/409/420‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Continued detention of accused for purposes of effecting recovery of money alone was not considered justified and it was observed that expeditious trial and availability of accused for that purpose might be more conducive to the just and expeditious termination of the proceedings‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in the circumstances on satisfaction of certain conditions.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑‑The petitioner facing the criminal prosecution under sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29‑5‑1989, whereby a petition filed by him, for bail after arrest, was dismissed alongwith a Constitution Petition whereby his prosecution itself was being challenged.
2. The petitioner, according to the prosecution case, had embarked on an industrial project but was really functioning as an investment company and had in the process obtained huge investment from private parties and defaulted in making repayment to them. The total liability in the context rose to the tune of Rs.1,57,00,
000. He has been kept behind the bars since 20th March, 1989, after having been granted interim bail for some time in order to facilitate the recovery. While the matter was pending in this Court a declaration of the assets etc., of the petitioner was obtained and the petitioner has submitted a valuation list of his own, of about Rs.70,00,000.
3. We have restricted the hearing only to the question of bail, as the matter with regard to tote quashment of the proceedings has been withdrawn.
4. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Deputy Attorney‑General contested the petition on the ground that all such persons who have defrauded the investors have taken refuge abroad and have avoided both repayment and trial. In order to ensure both these, the grant of bail is being opposed.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we think that for the purposes of effecting recovery of money alone, the continued detention of the petitioner would not be justified. On the other hand expeditious trial and availability of the petitioner for that purpose may be more conducive to the just and expeditious termination of the proceedings.
6. In the circumstances we convert this petition into appeal and admit the petitioner to bail on the satisfaction of the following conditions within a period of F fifteen days:‑ (1) He will pledge and no more encumber any of his properties which have been disclosed in the assets statement furnished to this Court and this pledge shall be done before the trial Court, Assistant Commissioner or the duty Magistrate for meeting likely liabilities arising out of any judgment give in the proceedings in which he is being prosecuted. (2) He shall furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac) only to the satisfaction of the .trial Court/Assistant Commissioner or the Duty Magistrate. (3) He will submit ten sureties of Rs.15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lac) each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Assistant Commissioner or the Duty Magistrate. N.H.Q./J‑67/S Accused admitted to bail.