2008 PLP 2662 (YLR)
GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2662 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2662 (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 2008 PLP 2662 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2662 (YLR) (GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saghir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of -Complainant obtained possession of plot in question, but later on he was dispossessed by the subsequent purchaser--Complainant had a remedy by moving an application seeking possession in the suit by way of amendment in the plaint and in case he successfully proved that the sale in his favour was prior to the sale in favour of subsequent purchaser etc., he would definitely get the possession of the same through the court
Question as to whether accused could be prosecuted under S.420, P.P.C. as well as S. 468, P.P.C. was one of further inquiry and offence under Ss.468 & 471, P.P.C." 'were' non-cognizable, whereas offence under S.420, P.P.C. was .compoundable
None of the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and question of forgery could not be determined at bail stage
Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Ishaq Masih Naz, D.P.-G. with Sabir, A.S.-I. Complainant in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.130, registered with Police Station Basti Malook, Multan on 18-4-2006 for an offence under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier Criminal Miscellaneous No.1413-B of 2006, was filed which was, later on, withdrawn on the statement of Karam Dad, S.-I. that a cancellation report was being submitted, however, suddenly the petitioner came to know that without further investigation challan under section 512, Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the petitioner in the said case, therefore, necessity has arisen for filing the present application.
3. The complainant who is present in person states that in fact the plot was sold to him by wife of Rana Ashiq Ali and also by Rana Muhammad Sarwar brother of Rana Ashiq in the year 1994 and possession was also delivered to him. However, later on, same plot has again been sold by them to Malik Arif Ameer and Mubarik Ali by showing the disputed plot and thereafter, said Malik Arif etc., illegally occupied the said plot during the pendency of suit filed by him for permanent injunction.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admitted, the complainant obtained the possession of the plot but later on he was dispossessed by the subsequent purchaser. In this view of the matter the complainant has a remedy by moving an application seeking possession in the suit by way of amendment in the plaint and in case of he successfully proved that the sale in his favour was prior to the sale in favour of Arif etc., he would definitely get the possession of the same through the Court.
5. Again the question as to whether the petitioner can be prosecuted simultaneously under sections 420, P.P.C. as well as 468, P.P.C. is one of further inquiry and further the offence under sections 468/471, P.P.C. are non-cognizable whereas the offence under section 420, P.P.C. is compoundable. None of the offences falls within the prohibitory clause and question of forgery cannot be determined at this stage. Resultantly, the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within ten days. H.B.T./G-22/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.