2007 PLP 1277 (YLR)
MEHTAB ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1277 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MEHTAB ALI — 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 1277 (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 1277 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1277 (YLR) (MEHTAB ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Jehanzaib Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Amount of cheque in question had not been mentioned in the F.I.R. at all
Cheque in question was issued about three months prior to reporting of matter to the police
Neither the cheque issued by accused nor its attested copy was available on record of the case and no Bank Officer had been cited as witness
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Arshad for the State with Mubarak Ali, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Mehtab Ali, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.7, registered at Police Station, Old Kotwali, Multan, on 12-1-2005, for offences under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R., the complainant gave more than Rs.74,00,000 to the petitioner as loan. Thereafter, the petitioner issued certain cheques in favour of the complainant, which bounced and cases were registered against him. The petitioner also issued Cheque No.CD-8479863 in favour of the complainant, which also bounced and the matter was reported to the police.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the amount of cheque has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. at all; perusal of the record reveals that the above mentioned cheque was issued on 15-9-2004, about three months prior to reporting of matter to the police; neither the cheque issued by the petitioner nor its attested copy is available on record of the case; and similarly not a single bank officer has been cited as witness. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of Rupees five lacs, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-744/L Bail granted.