1989 P Cr (PLP)
RIAZ QADEER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | RIAZ QADEER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (RIAZ QADEER‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/406‑‑Bail before arrest‑‑Only allegation against accused was that he accompanied co‑accused who received money and he had nothing to do with it‑‑Sessions Judge refused pre‑arrest bail, solely on ground that earlier petition was dismissed and that fact was not mentioned in subsequent application‑‑Pre‑arrest bail allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/406‑‑Bail before arrest‑‑Only allegation against accused was that he accompanied co‑accused who received money and he had nothing to do with it‑‑Sessions Judge refused pre‑arrest bail, solely on ground that earlier petition was dismissed and that fact was not mentioned in subsequent application‑‑Pre‑arrest bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam Awan for Petitioner. A case under section 420/406, P.P.C. stands registered against the petitioner and two others with Police Station Kothala Sheikhan, District Gujrat. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co‑accused obtained Rs. 8,500 with a promise to get the first informant loan from a bank. It is further contended that the petitioner never managed to get the first informant loan from the bank nor he returned the amount received from the first informant. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the co‑accused of the petitioner also took a buffalo worth about Rs. 9,500 and the co‑accused of the petitioner has neither returned the buffalo nor paid the amount.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he accompanied the co‑accused who received the money. Submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with it, nor he ever received the amount in question. Submits that the learned Sessions Judge refused the pre‑arrest bail solely on the ground that earlier a petition was dismissed but that fact was not mentioned in the subsequent application. It is pointed out that the petitioner had engaged the same counsel who knew all the facts, therefore, it was the fault of the counsel who had not mentioned the fact of having filed an application earlier.
3. Admit Notice.
4. The petitioner is allowed pre‑arrest bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Mandi Bahauddin. On the next date of hearing the petitioner shall appear in person. M.Y.H./R‑126/L Bail granted.