2018 PLP 67 (YLRN)
MIR AKBAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 67 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | MIR AKBAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 67 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 67 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 67 (YLRN) (MIR AKBAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate General for the State.
- 4. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is a considerable delay in lodging of FIR without any plausible explanation, the learned counsel further submitted that offences under sections 420/471, P.P.C. are bailable, while the punishment provided under section 468, Cr.P.C. is seven years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused lastly contended that the petitioner/ accused is first offender, no more required for further investigations and prays that the petitioner/accused be admitted to bail in the interest of justice. The learned counsel relied on PLD 1995 SC 34, 2000 PCr.LJ 814 and 2003 MLD 165.
- 5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General, opposed the bail petition with vehemence and submits that a prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused, he does not deserve, the concession of bail which has rightly been refused by the two subordinate Courts after due application of mind.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document
Complainant had alleged that accused produced a fake recommendation letter for employment
Case against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and in such a situation bail would be declined only in extra-ordinary circumstances i.e. absconsion, tampering with prosecution evidence, repeating the offence, previous convict etc.
Bail was granted accordingly. [Para. 6 of the judgment] PLD 1995 SC 34; 2000 PCr.LJ 814 and 2003 MLD 165 ref. PLD 1995 SC 34 rel. Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
One Hameedullah, Dy. Registrar, Legal Affairs, KIU Gilgit got recorded FIR No.9/2017 under section 420/468/471 against the petitioner/accused on the allegations that he produced a fake recommendation letter issued from the President Secretariat Rawalpindi, addressed to vice-Chancellor, KIU Gilgit for his employment as generator operator. On verification the said letter was found fake.
2. Accused/petitioner was arrested and after completion of necessary investigations he was committed to judicial custody.
3. The petitioner/accused applied for bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit, which was refused vide order dated 29-07-2017. The petitioner/ accused approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gilgit by filing bail application bearing No.115/2017 but same met with same fate. The petitioner being not satisfied from the verdicts of two Courts blow, now knocked the door of this Court for concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that there is a considerable delay in lodging of FIR without any plausible explanation, the learned counsel further submitted that offences under sections 420/471, P.P.C. are bailable, while the punishment provided under section 468, Cr.P.C. is seven years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused lastly contended that the petitioner/ accused is first offender, no more required for further investigations and prays that the petitioner/accused be admitted to bail in the interest of justice. The learned counsel relied on PLD 1995 SC 34, 2000 PCr.LJ 814 and 2003 MLD 165.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General, opposed the bail petition with vehemence and submits that a prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused, he does not deserve, the concession of bail which has rightly been refused by the two subordinate Courts after due application of mind.
6. T have heard the arguments from both the parties and gone through the entire record of the case. No doubt that the petitioner/accuse is charged in the FIR and there exists a prima-facie case against him, however case against accused/ petitioner did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. PC and when a case falls out of the clutches of prohibition contains in section 497, Cr.P.C., bail will be declined only in extra ordinary cases, Where there is likely hood of absconsion of accused, there is apprehension that the accused will temper the prosecution evidence or will repeat the offence or when the accused is a previous convict. The reliance is placed on PLD 1995 SC
34. Bail cannot and should not be withheld as measures of advance punishment.
7. In view of above discussion the petitioner/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00000/- (Rupees ten lac) with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate, at Gilgit.
8. The petition bearing Cr. Misc. No.125/2017 is disposed of accordingly. WA/215/GB Bail granted.