2010 PLP 2445 (YLR)
Mirza MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2445 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Hassan Raza Pasha, J |
| Parties | Mirza MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2445 (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 2010 PLP 2445 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Hassan Raza Pasha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2445 (YLR) (Mirza MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Siddique Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.489-F/34--Dishonestly issuing a cheque--Bail, grant of
Principal accused was behind the bars; liability was against co-accused and accused was just a guarantor
Prosecution had conceded that offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. was not made out from the facts and circumstances of the case
Nothing had been recovered from the accused and his custody was no more required by the Police
Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Keeping accused behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve or advance prosecution's case, rather same would amount to punishment before conviction which was not permissible under criminal jurisprudence
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mirza Nabeel Tahir for Complainant. Azmat Ali Bokhari, Standing Counsel for the State.
Judgment & Decree
HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.
Through this petition the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No.68 dated 10-2-2010 for offence under section 489-34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Shalimar Islamabad.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque of Rs.1,00,00,000 which was dishonoured at the time of presentation before the concerned bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque was not issued against any liability, in fact the cheque was issued as a guarantee and the petitioner had performed his part of agreement, hence, no offence under section 489-F P.P.C. is made out against the petitioner; that the matter is of civil nature; that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is not required by the police for further investigation; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Learned Standing Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and specific role of issuing cheque in favour of complainant has been assigned to him which on presen tation to bank was dishonoured. During police investigation accused was found gully involved in crime alleged against him.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly the cheque was issued on 1-12-2007 and an agreement between the parties was executed. The principal accused is behind the bars. The liability was against the co-accused and the present petitioner is just a guarantor. The learned Standing Counsel frankly conceded that section 489-F, P.P.C. is not made from the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and his custody is no more required by the Police. Offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve or advance prosecution's case, rather same would amount to punishment before conviction which is not permissible under criminal jurisprudence.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-95/K Bail granted.