2010 PLP 311 (YLR)
SULEMAN JALIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 311 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zubda-tul-Hussain, J |
| Parties | SULEMAN JALIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 311 (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 311 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zubda-tul-Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 311 (YLR) (SULEMAN JALIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Salamat Ali Haidery for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Dishonestly issuing a cheque--Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Discrepancy regarding the date of issuance of cheque and the detention of accused behind the bars at that time, was not reconciled during the argument on record
Case, in circumstances seemed to be of further inquiry
Said circumstances could also tend to show that element of mala fide could not be excluded in the case
Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed. Basharat Ali Gill, D.D.P.P. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.
The petitioner has applied for the pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.174/2009 for an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had been given, for the purpose of sale, Sims and cards and he mis appropriated an amount of Rs.80,000 and later on issued a cheque for the same, which was dishonoured.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated, which is evident from the fact that the cheque was stated to have been issued on 1841-2008, whereas on that date, the petitioner was behind the bars in another case registered against him.
4. The learned D.D.P.P. has opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioner could have issued the cheque, when he was not yet behind the bars.
5. Be that as it may, the discrepancy regarding the date of issuance of cheque and the detention of the petitioner behind the bars at that time, is not reconciled during the arguments or record. It is, therefore, seems to be a case of further inquiry. The same circumstances may also tend to show that the element of mala fide may not be excluded in this case.
6. Keeping in view the above circumstances, the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed provided he submits fresh bail bonds in the amount of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./S-234/L Bail confirmed.