2004 PLP 1553 (YLR)
NASIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1553 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J |
| Parties | NASIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1553 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1553 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1553 (YLR) (NASIR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Practice and procedure‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Criminal proceedings were not barred in presence of civil proceedings‑‑‑Verdict in criminal proceedings however, could not be pronounced till the result of civil case. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/489‑F/506(2)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Complainant had also filed a summary suit for recovery of amount in which leave to defend suit had been granted to accused subject to condition of furnishing security and said security had been deposited by accused‑‑‑Offence alleged against accused was punishable by three years and criminal case against accused was not expected to be disposed of expeditiously‑‑‑Accused, who remained in custody for a period of five months, was entitled to grant of bail. Syed Madad Ali Shah for Applicant. Anwar H. Ansari for the State. Allah Bachayo Soomro for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Madad Ali Shah for Applicant. Anwar H. Ansari for the State. Allah Bachayo Soomro for the Complainant. The applicant is involved in Crime IVo.45 of 2003, Police Station, Phulleli, Hyderabad, under sections 420, 489‑F and 506(2), P.P.C. pending trial in the Court of IIIrd. Extra Joint Civil Judge and FCM, Hyderabad. Precisely, the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are that the applicant was paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000 by the complainant on 9‑6‑2002 for the purpose of establishing joint business. On demand of repayment, the applicant issued a cheque on 2‑'4:2003 amounting to " Rs.8,65,000, which was dishonoured. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the offence under section 420, P.P.C. is bailable while the punishment provided for offence under section 489‑F is three years and that the offence under section 506(2), P.P.C. was not prima facie made out. The applicant was arrested on 31‑7‑2003 and is behind bars since then. Learned State counsel submits that the applicant has committed offence of fraud but adds that the offence alleged does not fall within prohibitory clause and applicant is in jail since last five months. Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, vehemently opposed the grant of bail arguing that the applicant deserved exemplary punishment, for having the complainant deprived of a huge amount. He suggested that instead of granting bail to the applicant, the trial Court be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. Arguments have been heard and the material placed on record has been perused. It is a settled proposition of law that the criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil proceedings. However, it is equally well‑settled that a verdict m criminal proceedings cannot be‑pronounced till the result of the civil case. In the case in hand the complainant has also filed a summary suit, in which leave to defend has been granted to the applicant subject to condition of furnishing security. It is stated at the Bar that the security has been furnished, which fact has been confirmed by the complainant. The offence alleged is punishable by three years and the criminal case is not expected to be disposed of expeditiously. The applicant is entitled to grant of bail, more particularly when he has remained in custody for a period of five months. In the circumstances, applicant is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./N‑14/K Bail granted.