2008L2587 (PLP)
IQBAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008L2587 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IQBAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008L2587 (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 2008L2587 (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: 2008L2587 (PLP) (IQBAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bilal Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Offence alleged against accused though was punishable with only three years, but the conduct of accused had spoken volumes
Accused was not entitled to extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail
Bail petition, was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Petitioner Iqbal Hussain seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R' No. 27, dated 12-1-2007 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gulgasht District Multan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that of issuance of two cheques valuing Rs.3,60,000, which were later on dishonoured. Hence, the present case.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of 4 days in the registration of the case; that the cheques on the basis of which present case has been registered relate to a cheque-book which was stolen about 7 months prior to the registration of the instant case and the petitioner had lodged F.I.R. No. 188 of 2006, dated 24-4-2006 at Police Station Gulgasht; that the offence is punishable with three years only; that the petitioner has been involved in the case by the complainant, on the asking of one Khalid against -whom petitioner had lodged a theft case.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that petitioner has devised a new method of committing fraud by lodging an F.I.R. of theft of his cheque-book and thereafter fleecing money from the petitioner and issuing cheques out of that cheque-book; that another case F.I.R. No.264 of 2007, dated 25-4-2007 of similar nature also stands registered at Police Station Gulgasht against the petitioner; that the complainant has nothing to do with Khalid or for that matter with the petitioner to falsely implicate him in the instant case. Complainant has been fleeced by the petitioner under the garb of being a property dealer.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Although the offence is punishable with only three years but the conduct of the petitioner speaks volume, therefore, at least he is not entitled to extraordinary relief for pre-arrest bail. This petition is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./I-47/L Bail refused.