2011 PLP 1284 (YLR)
ZAHID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1284 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asad Munir, J |
| Parties | ZAHID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1284 (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 2011 PLP 1284 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asad Munir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1284 (YLR) (ZAHID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Attique-uz-Zaman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Cheques in question had been admitted to have been issued by accused and no evidence had been shown to indicate that the said cheques were issued by way of guarantee
Petitioner would have the opportunity to prove his assertion that the cheques were issued as a guarantee at the trial
Bail was refused. Tanveer Chaudhry for the Complainant. Babar Ali, Standing Counsel along with Abdul Sattar, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
ASAD MUNIR, J.
Zahid Iqbal son of Abdul Rashid seeks post arrest bail in case F.1.R. No.341, dated 15-10-2009 for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad at the instance of Ghulam Mustafa.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner issued two cheques to the complainant one for Rs.6,00,000 and the other for Rs.1150,000 but both the cheques were dishonoured by the bank upon presentation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is an unexplained delay in lodging .the F.I.R. against the petitioner who is in jail since 18-10-2009. It is also contended that the cheque was not due and payable as it was given as a guarantee and not in consideration of any amount due from the petitioner to the complainant.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, supported by the counsel for the complainant, has opposed the bail on the ground that the issuance of the cheques by the petitioner is admitted which is an acknowledgement that the amount in question was due. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that the challan has been submitted and the trial is likely to be concluded soon as the charge has also been framed by the learned trial Court.
5. I have given due consideration to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. Cheques in question has been admitted to be issued by the petitioner and no evidence has been shown to indicate that the cheques in question were issued by way of guarantee. However, the petitioner will have the opportunity to prove his assertion that the cheques were issued as a guarantee at the trial which I am assured by the D.P.-G. will be concluded within a short period. In the circumstances, the petition for bail is refused but the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within two months. H.B.T./Z-49/L Bail refused.