2006 PLP 23 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 23 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 23 (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 2006 PLP 23 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 23 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.489-F
Pre-arrest bail, refusal of--Issuance of cheque in question, presentation of same before concerned Bank and its dishonour, were admitted facts
Accused had failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of prosecution to falsely involve him in the case-Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances. Ch. M. Zulfiqar Ali Chheena for G Petitioner. Mubashar Latif Gill, A.A.-G. Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for the Complainant. Miss Zahida Batool for the State. Ghulam Muhammad, S.I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
Petitioner has sought his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.183 of 2005 dated 30-6-2005 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. on the complaint of Ghulam Qasim at Police Station Chehlyak, District Multan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lac only), which was presented before the concerned Bank and the same was dishonoured. Hence, this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive; that offence against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause; that the disputed cheque was issued and presented at District Lodhran and case could not be registered regarding the same transaction at Multan. Further submits that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and the petitioner got sanctioned the mutation after payment of entire amount.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submits that the petitioner has not joined the investigation after dismissal of his bail from the Court of first instance and the disputed cheque was presented in Bank of Punjab, MDA Branch at Multan.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Issuance of cheque and presentation for the same before the concerned bank and also its dishonour are the admitted facts. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that cheque was issued and dishonoured from the concerned bank at District Vehari is concerned, it has been clearly shown that the disputed cheque was presented in the Bank of Punjab, M.D.A. Chowk Branch at Multan and in this way case was also registered at Multan. Petitioner has failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of prosecution that as to why he has been falsely involved in the case.
7. Resultantly the instant bail petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-1380/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.