2005 PLP 1362 (YLR)
TAHIR SOHAIL GONDAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1362 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J |
| Parties | TAHIR SOHAIL GONDAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1362 (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 2005 PLP 1362 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Bashir Ansari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1362 (YLR) (TAHIR SOHAIL GONDAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Majid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Offence, if any, had taken place on the date when section 489-F was not on the Statue Book
No offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. could be made out against accused retrospectively
F.I.R. was filed with inordinate unexplained delay by prosecution
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Afaf Rahim v. Nisar Ahmad and 2 others 2004 PCr.LJ 263 ref. Muhammad Younis for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for the grant of bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.349 dated 29-6-2004 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C., at Police Station Cantt. District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the petitioner issued two cheques dated 17-3-2001 and 17-4-2001 which were dishonoured when presented to the banker on 17-4-2001. The F.I.R. was lodged on 29-6-2004.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence if any took place on 17-4-2001 when section 489-F, P.P.C. was not on the Statute Book. He has placed reliance on Afaf Rahim v. Nisar Ahmad and 2 others 2004 PCr.LJ 263 to contend that no offence under this provision can be made out against the petitioner retrospectively. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. lodged on 29-6-2004 was filed with inordinate delay which has not been explained by the prosecution.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has not seriously controverted either of the grounds raised by the petitioner.
5. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./T-76/L Bail granted.