2008 PLP 483 (MLD)
Syed ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 483 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH — 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 483 (MLD)?
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 483 (MLD)?
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: 2008 PLP 483 (MLD) (Syed ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Waseem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-B & 420
Was yet to be decided as to whether the case against accused fell under the provisions of S.489-B or section 489-C, P.P.C. and whether accused had or did not have the knowledge that the currency notes were forged
Case of the prosecution pertained only to the recovery of forged and counterfeit currency Notes, which attracted provisions of S.489-C, P.P.C. which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Co-accused, being already on bail, under the rule of consistency accused was also entitled to same relief
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.405 under sections 489-B and 420, P.P.C., dated 30-11-2006, registered at Police Station Shahpur Saddar, Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case due to mala fide intention of the complainant as well as the police; that the co-accused of the petitioner has been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, under the rule of consistency, he is also entitled to the same relief, that this case is open to that of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Hafeez alias Feeza v. The State (1999 YLR 1301) that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period of time will not serve the prosecution case.
3. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role and he has been declared guilty during the investigation. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is yet to be decided whether the case against the petitioner falls under the provisions of section 489-B or section 489-C, P.P.C. and whether the accused/petitioner had or did not have the knowledge that the said notes were forged, anyhow, at this stage the case of the prosecution pertains only to the recovery of forged and counterfeit currency notes, which attracts the provisions of section 489-C, P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2005 YLR 2337). The co-accused of the petitioner is already on bail, therefore, under the rule of consistency, he is also entitled to the same relief.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction) of the learned Trial Court. H.B.T./A-228/L Bail granted.