YLR 2010

2010 PLP 2421(2) (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1899-B of 2010, decided on 17th March, 2010.
Honorable Judges
Sheikh Ahmad Farooq, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 2421(2) (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Sheikh Ahmad Farooq, J
Parties MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2421(2) (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 2010 PLP 2421(2) (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Ahmad Farooq, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2421(2) (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muqtedir Akhtar Shabir and Mehar Qamar Sajajd for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F

Dishonestly issuing a cheque

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Accused volunteered to pay alleged amount of cheque, subject to the condition that complainant would be bound to refund said amount, in case the suit for rendition of account and return of original documents, which had been filed by accused against the complainant in a civil court, was decided against him

Pendency of a civil suit, prima facie had established that there was some business transaction and the matter in dispute was primarily of a civil nature

In view of the payment of amount in dispute by accused to the complainant, the intended arrest of accused by the Police would be of no use, except causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation to accused at the hands of investigating agency

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Rana Abdul Majid Khan for the Complainant. Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry, Deputy Prosecutor General with Rana Shamim, S.-I. Police Station Sabzazar, Lahore for the State.

Judgment & Decree

The petitioner Muhammad Sarfraz seeks his pre-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 820/2008, dated 28-10-2008, registered in Police Station Sabzazar, Lahore, under section 489-F, P.P.C.

2. Succinctly, the allegations leveled by the complainant against the present petitioner in the F.I.R. are that the said petitioner gave him two Cheques bearing No.71052837 and 71052838 of Rs.50,000 each, which were dishonoured by the concerned Bank, when presented for encashment, due to insufficient funds. The complainant contended that he contacted the accused/present petitioner after bouncing of the afore-mentioned cheques but he refused to pay the disputed amount.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was business relations between the petitioner and the complainant and the cheques in dispute were issued against purchase of cement but subsequently, a compromise was effected between the parties on 29-2-2008 whereby Rs.50,000 was paid to the complainant. He further submits that through a second compromise dated 9-4-2008, an additional amount .of Rs.70,000 was paid and presently only Rs.20,000 is outstanding against the present petitioner. He argued that the matter in dispute is also pending adjudication in a Civil Court and the punishment of the offence alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner is only three years. Lastly, he contended that grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal an exception.

4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner has not denied his signatures on the cheques in dispute. Learned counsel for the complainant also denied the second agreement dated 9-4-2008 whereby the present petitioner allegedly paid an amount of Rs.70,000 to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the present petitioner and the present petitioner is not entitled to extra-ordinary concession of-fire-arrest bail.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. During, the course of arguments, the petitioner volunteered to pay an amount of Rs.90,000 (Rs.65000 in hard cash and Rs.25,000 in the form of prize bonds) to the complainant, today, in the Court, subject to the condition that the complainant/Mian Manzoor Hussain would be bound to refund the afore-mentioned amount, in case the suit for rendition of account and return of original document, which has been filed by the present petitioner/Muhammad Sarfraz against the complainant in a civil Court, is decided against him. The pendency of a civil suit prima facie establishes that there was some business transaction and the matter in dispute is primarily of a civil nature. Furthermore, in view of the payment of Rs.90,000 (Rs.65,000 in hard cash and Rs.25,000 in the form of prize bonds) by the petitioner to the complainant, today, in the Court, subject to the aforesaid condition, the intended arrest of the petitioner by the police would be of no use except causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the present petitioner, at the hands of the Investigation Agency.

7. Consequently, the petition for pre-arrest bail, filed by Muhammad Sarfraz, is accepted subject to submission of fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000, with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-386/L Bail granted.