2002 PLP 3909 (YLR)
SHAHZAD ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3909 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry and Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHZAD ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3909 (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 2002 PLP 3909 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry and Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3909 (YLR) (SHAHZAD ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervez Inayat Malik and C.M. Sarwar for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 1st February, 2001.
- Anwarul Haq Pannu, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.195‑A/420/506‑‑‑Anticipatory bail, confirmation of‑‑‑No evidence was collected by Police in course of investigation which could show that accused had obtained any sum of money from complainant or had induced complainant to part with money‑‑ Anticipatory bail allowed to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Anwarul Haq Pannu, Advocate. Nasir Yar Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Anwarul Haq Pannu, Advocate. Nasir Yar Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 1st February, 2001. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Criminal case F.I.R. No.252 of 2000 dated 11‑9‑2000 under sections 420, 395‑A and 506, P.P.C., was registered at Police Station, Sabza Zar, Lahore, on the report of one Maj. (Retired) Ghulam Saqlain. According to the complainant he paid a sum of Rupees 12 lacs to Abdul Hameed, who was Chief Executive of Messrs Diwan Tea Company. It was alleged by the complainant that a further sum of Rupees 6 lacs was also paid to Abdul Hameed. The complainant subsequently found that Abdul Hameed and others were fraudsters and demanded return of Rupees 18 lacs advanced by him to said Abdul Hameed. On failure of the accused to meet the demand of the complainant, the matter was reported to police where after criminal case was registered.
2. Shahzad Ali and his mother Mst. Parveen Bibi submitted under consideration application for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Both the petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail, and interim by 'order dated 1‑2‑2001 and the matter was posted for further proceedings today.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is not an iota of evidence in the hands of the police which could manifest that the petitioners had obtained any sum of money from the complainant. It was submitted that the petitioners were involved in the case on account of their relationship with Mamshad another accused in the case. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand referred to certain documents showing Mst. Parveen to be partner of Abdul Hameed in a Firm.
5. No evidence was collected by the police in the course of investigation which could show that Shahzad Ali or Mst. Parveen had obtained any sum of money from the complainant or had induced the complainant to part with the money. As a consequence the anticipatory bail allowed to the petitioners by order dated 1‑2‑2001 is, hereby, confirmed. H.B.T./S‑520/L Anticipatory bail confirmed.