2008 P Cr (PLP)
SAEED ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAEED ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 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 2008 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: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (SAEED ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shoaib Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Case against accused was not of heavy amount and punishment provided by said offence was three years, which did not fall within the prohibition contained under S.497(1) Cr.P.C.
Investigation qua accused was complete and 'challan had been submitted in the court
Investigating Officer had not verified denial of signature on the alleged cheque in the investigation
Accused who was behind the bars since long, could not be kept there as premature punishment
Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.277 of 2007, dated 21-6-2005 offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered with Police Station City, District Mianwali.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is behind the bars since 13-12-2007 and it is not a case of heavy amount and case does not fall within prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and he cannot be kept behind bars as a premature punishment; that from the day one the petitioner has been agitating that the cheques in question are not containing the signatures of the petitioner but same fact has not being verified during the investigation.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed this bail petition and states that petitioner had defrauded the complainant and he is not entitled to grant of bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the record, I find that this is not a case of heavy amount and punishment provided for this offence is three years, which does not fall outside the prohibition contained under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Investigation qua him is complete. Challan has been submitted in Court. The Investigating Officer has not verified denial of signatures on the alleged cheque in the investigation. The petitioner cannot be kept behind bars as premature punishment.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-6/L Bail granted.