2018 PLP 157 (YLRN)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 157 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sami Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 157 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 157 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 157 (YLRN) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Usman Riaz Gill for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Unexplained delay of more than two and half months in registration of FIR showed that FIR had been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation
Words "only for guarantee cheque", were mentioned on the back of cheque in dispute, which denoted that said cheque had not been issued for fulfilment of any financial obligation, rather same was a security cheque
Attraction of S.489-F, P.P.C., qua accused would be determined by the Trial Court
Accused was a previous non-convict; he had already joined the investigation which was complete
Sending accused behind the bars at such stage, would not serve beneficial purpose
False implication of accused by the complainant after joining hands with local Police, could not be ruled out
Ad interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment] Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others 2013 SCMR 51 rel. Ms. Tahira Parveen, D.D.P.P. for the State and Munir, ASI with record.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.276/17, dated 02.06.2017 registered at Police Station City Muridkay, District Sheikhupura in respect of offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is permissible at this stage, therefore, without going into deeper appreciation of evidence, it is noticed that there is a delay of more than two and a half months in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. The original cheque in dispute is available on record and the same has been perused by this Court. The words "only for guarantee cheque" are mentioned on the back of the cheque in dispute, which denotes that the cheque has not been issued for fulfillment of any financial obligation rather it is a security cheque. In this view of the eventuality, the attraction of section 489-F P.P.C. qua the petitioner would be determined by learned trial court at an appropriate stage. In this context, reliance can be placed on the case of "Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others" (2013 SCMR 51). Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. He has already joined the investigation, which, as per statement of the investigating officer is complete, therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage would not serve any beneficial purpose.
3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant after joining hands with local police cannot be ruled out of consideration, hence, this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. HBT/M-28/L Bail confirmed.