2009 PLP 560 (YLR)
HAYAT KHAN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 560 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | HAYAT KHAN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 560 (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 2009 PLP 560 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 560 (YLR) (HAYAT KHAN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 468 & 471
Proceedings of compromise between the parties, which had been placed on record, prima facie, indicated that the dispute between the parties was one of civil nature which was pending in the court of competent jurisdiction
Pre-arrest bail, already granted to accused persons, was confirmed, in circumstances. Ch. Pervez Akhtar Gujjar for the Petitioners. Rao Atif Nawaz for the State. Muhammad Ashfaq Gill for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Petitioners namely Hayat Khan, Mehmood Khan, Ali Sher and Falak Sher, seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.110/07 dated 27-9-2007 under sections 419, 468,471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Lines District Sahiwal.
2. According to F.I.R, the precise allegation against the petitioners is that they along with others prepared a forged agreement to sell in order to grab the complainant's land.
3. It is contended that civil suit filed by the petitioner-Hayat Khan for specific performance of the disputed agreement was filed on 21-7-2007 much before the registration of the instant case; that the instant case has been got registered by the complainant to wriggle-out of the said sale agreement. It is further submitted that even recently complainant had entered into a compromise, Photostat copy of which has been placed on record, with regard to the criminal litigation and also the civil litigation. It is thus, concluded that the matter in dispute is inherently one of civil nature.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application whereas the learned counsel for the complainant does not deny the fact of compromise through an agreement dated 14-4-2008, however, submits that both the parties resiled from the said agreement rather he has also placed on record an affidavit of Hayat Khan-petitioner with regard to the same dispute.
5. I have considered the contentions raised from both sides.
6. The proceedings of compromise between the parties which have been placed on record, prima facie, indicate that the dispute between the parties is one of civil nature which is pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, this application is allowed and the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 7-3-2008 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./H-28/L Bail conformed.