2007 PLP 1796 (YLR)
KHALID SAJJAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1796 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J |
| Parties | KHALID SAJJAD — 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 1796 (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 1796 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1796 (YLR) (KHALID SAJJAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Rabbiya Bajwa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Bail before arrest, refusal of
Accused could not substantiate his submissions of investment of any amount by complainant for trading in the Stock. Exchange or re-payment by him of the amounts given by complainant
No documentary proof was available with accused that he had issued the cheques in question, in advance to complainant
Counsel for accused attempted to argue that complainant owed an amount of Rs. 20,00,000 and he had already filed a suit for its recovery against complainant, but pendency of suit would not give a licence to accused to issue fake cheques of considerable huge amount of Rs. 41,00,000, one after the other
All cheques by accused were dishonoured which had in it element of deliberate cheating
Prosecution had collected sufficient incriminating evidence in form of statements of prosecution witnesses under S.161, Cr. P. C., besides documentary evidence in form of Bank Memos.
Accused had not joined police investigation, despite direction in that behalf
Accused had been named and assigned specific role in F.I.R. and was prima facie connected with the offence charged
No case for confirmation of bail before arrest, having been made out interim bail before arrest granted to accused, was recalled. Atar Mehmood for the Complainant. Shoaib Zafar for the Sate along with M. Majeed, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.
Petitioner was refused bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 18-4-2006, in case against him vide F.I.R. No.137, dated 10-3-2006, under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Islampura, Lahore. He, thereafter, filed instant petition for the same relief and was conferred interim bail before arrest on 12-9-2006.
2. Charge against the petitioner is that he issued seven fake cheques, total value of those was Rs.41,00,000, which on presentation, to the drawee Bank, were dishonoured.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Petitioner could not substantiate his submissions of investment of any amount by the complainant for trading in the Lahore Stock Exchange or re-payment by f him of the amounts given by the complainant. Similarly, there is no documentary proof with the petitioner that he had issued the cheques in question, in advance to the investment made by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that complainant owes an amount of Rs.20,00,000, and he has already filed a suit for recovery against the complainant, but pendency of the suit would not give a licence to the petitioner to issue fake cheques of considerable huge amount of Rs.41,00,000, one after the other. All the cheques by the petitioner were dishonoured which has in it, the element of deliberate cheating. Prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating evidence in form of statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. besides documentary evidence in form of bank memos. The petitioner has not joined police investigation, in spite of direction in this behalf. He ants been named and assigned specific rote In the F.I.R. and is prima facie connected with the offence charged.
4. For the reasons noted above, no case for confirmation of bail before arrest was made out and accordingly instant petition is dismissed. Interim bail before arrest granted to the petitioner on 12-9-2006 is re-called. H.B.T./K-4/L Bail refused.