MLD 2002

2002 PLP 240 (MLD)

DASTGIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5450‑B of 2001, decided on 10th October, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 240 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J
Parties DASTGIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 240 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 240 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 240 (MLD) (DASTGIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhry for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/468/471‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, confirmation of‑‑‑Case of the accused was that he being ex -servant of the complainant had to receive from the complainant certain amount and that he having left the job, the complainant who was his ex‑employer had falsely implicated him in .the case simply to avoid payment of amount due towards the complainant‑‑‑Prima facie the case of the accused seemed to be of a civil nature which had been converted into a criminal case‑‑‑Accused had succeeded in making out a case for his false involvement with mala fide intention and ulterior motive‑‑‑Bail before arrest already granted to the accused, was confirmed in circumstances. Mian Khalid Hussain for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhry for Petitioner. Mian Khalid Hussain for the State. Through this application under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No. 136 of 2001 registered on 11‑5‑2001 under sections 406/468 and 471, P.P.C. at Police Station Jal Chakian, District Sargodha.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who was ex- Munshi at the petrol pump of the complainant Muhammad Sher has embezzled the amount of RS.29,010 out of the sale produce of the Fuel Station.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case of civil nature which has been converted into criminal offence by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives and the case has been registered after '6 and, half months later of the occurrence. It is further contended that this false case has been registered in order to pressurize him and restraining him from claiming the amount from the complainant. It is also contended that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause.

4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the amount is yet to be recovered from him and he is not entitled to bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows the mala fide on the part of the complainant that the petitioner is ex‑servant and according to him has not paid outstanding amount 29,010 out of the Fuel Station. The case of the petitioner is that he has to receive Rs.4,000 from the complainant and he has left the job, hence; he has been falsely implicated in this case. Prima facie the case of the petitioner seems to be of civil nature which has been converted into criminal case: Being a rich man of the village the petitioner who is poor has been involved in this case in order to pressurize him and for restraining him from demanding any amount from the complainant. The petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for, his false involvement with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Hence, the bail before arrest already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 3‑10‑2001 is hereby confirmed provided, he submits fresh bail bonds amounting to Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./D‑25/L Bail before arrest confirmed.