2009 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Abbasi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/406
Explanation given by the complainant for having lodged the F.I.R. with a delay of about eight months was natural in (he peculiar circumstances of the case- -Complainant was justified to pursue the accused and make an effort for getting the needful done in due course and when ultimately he came to the conclusion that he had been cheated and his trust had been violated he lodged the F.I.R. belatedly and the delay in such a situation could not be detrimental to his case at bail stage
Accused was behind the bars for the last seven months and the offence was not covered by the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., yet the grant of hail was a discretionary relief for which the relevant circumstances could be taken into consideration and Court could justifiably refuse to exercise this discretion in favour of accused, if it prima facie transpired that the alleged offence had caused serious detriment to the complainant--Accused had not only betrayed the trust of the complainant and cheated him, but also in doing so had caused such financial loss to him as may be source of irreparable loss towards his individual economic position as well as the well being and peaceful financial life of his fancily
Accused in given circumstances could not claim bail as of right in a non-bailable offence, even though the case did not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.-- Bail was declined to accused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.
The petitioner who is accused of breach of trust and cheating which resulted in depriving the complainant of an amount of Rs.7 lass with excuse that he shall provide him motorcycles on subsidized rates but he neither accomplished the trust nor returned the money to the complainant, has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.449 of 2006, dated 28-11-2006, under sections 420 and 406, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that two months delay in registration of the case is sufficient to cause reasonable aspersion against the veracity of the complainant and the petitioner who is behind the bars since 30-8-2008 for an offence which is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. The learned D.P.-G. opposed the bail contending that in view of the facts alleged in the F.I.R. the offence under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. is duly made out and the petitioner could not be given the premium for his own misdeeds by extending the benefit of bail to him at the present stage of the case.
4. There is no doubt that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of about eight months but the explanation given by the complainant in the peculiar circumstances of the case is just natural because if there was a commitment on the part of the petitioner to provide motorcycles to the complainant on subsidized rates and he provided a few of them to the complainant, the latter was justified to pursue him and make an effort for getting the needful done in due course. If ultimately he came to the conclusion that he had been cheated and his trust had been violated he could lodge the F.I.R. belatedly and the delay in such situation could not be detrimental to his case at bail stage.
5. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about seven months and the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause, yet it also cannot be denied that the grant of bail is a discretionary relief for which the relevant circumstances can he taken into consideration and the Court can justifiably refuse to exercise this discretion in favour of the accused petitioner if it prima facie transpires that the alleged offence has caused serious detriment to the complainant. In the instant case, by the given facts, the petitioner not only betrayed the trust of the complainant and cheated him but also in doing so caused such financial loss to him as maybe the source of irreparable loss towards his individual economic position as well as the well being and peaceful financial life of his family. I am of the considered opinion that in the given circumstances of the case the petitioner cannot claim bail as of right in a non-bailable offence even though the ease does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The bail petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./M-158/L Bail refused.