2007 PLP 2723 (YLR)
SULTAN AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2723 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J |
| Parties | SULTAN AHMED — 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 2723 (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 2723 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2723 (YLR) (SULTAN AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Offence against accused being punishable with imprisonment of three years, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P: C.
Bail should be granted to accused a~ a rule, while refusal would be an exception
Challan had also been sent to the court, but no progress had been made in the case and it would take a long time before the trial was concluded and till then remaining of accused behind the bars, would amount to punishment, which was not permissible under the law
Bail was allowed to accused, in circumstances. Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 ref. Malik Sahib Khan Awan for the State with Mehr Ali Chaudhry, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.
The petitioner, Sultan Ahmed, seeks post-arrest bail ire case bearing F.I.R. No.273 of 2006; dated 26-4-2006, under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar, District Jhang, at the instance of complainant Fida Hussain.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the cheque of the petitioner was misplaced; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last four months and is no longer required for investigation.
3. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition.
4. The petitioner is an accused of offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., which is punishable with imprisonment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The Staten (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34), in offences, which do not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail should be granted as a rule while refusal thereto is an exception. Challan has also been sent to the Court but no progress has, been made so far. It shall take a long time before the trial is concluded. Till, then his remaining behind the bars would amount to punishment, which is not permissible under the law.
5. In light of what has been discussed above, while accepting this petition, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./5-117/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted