2011 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. NAEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus WAKEEL BADSHA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. NAEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus WAKEEL BADSHA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 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 2011 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: 2011 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. NAEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus WAKEEL BADSHA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tanveer Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-F/468/471/420
Dishonestly issuing a cheque, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document and cheating
Petition for cancellation of bail
No perversity was found in the bail granting order, nor any exceptional circumstances had been brought to the notice of the court, which could persuade the court to order cancellation of the bail
Role of the petitioner as a surety in the transaction of sale of car in question, was yet to be determined; and the evidence existing on record did not make out a case for cancellation of bail
Petition for cancellation of bail being devoid of merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ASAD MUNIR, J.
This is a petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for recalling order dated 26-1-2010 whereby pre-arrest bail was granted to the respondent No. 1 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in case F.I.R. No.14, dated 13-1-2010 for offence under section 489-F/468/471/420, P.P.C. registered at .Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner purchased a Suzuki Mehran car from Kashif Javed through respondent No.1, who is her ex-husband, and who acted as surety for the transaction. However, the Car was subsequently seized by bank on account of default in payment of instalments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the pre-arrest bail has been granted without considering the evidence on record which showed that the respondent No.1 was fully involved along with the other accused, who had committed fraud in selling a car to the petitioner without disclosing that instalments were due to the bank.
4. I have considered the, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner but I am unable to see any perversity in the bail granting order which cannot- be taken exception to. Nor any exceptional circumstance has been brought to my notice as would persuade me to order cancellation of the bail. The role of the petitioner as a surety in the transaction for the sale of car is yet to be determined and the evidence as it presently exists does not make out a case for cancellation of bail.
5. In view of the above, the petition for cancellation of bail is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./N-100/L Petition dismissed.