2009 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 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 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari and Khalid Parveen for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/471/467
Accused was behind the bars for the last about six months and the offences against him did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
According to medical report accused was a patient of Hepatitis `C'
Accused also had history of Blood in Vomitus and his condition reflected worsening of disease
Accused needed investigation and management in Hospital which could not be carried out inside Jail Hospital
In view of his condition, his further detention in jail would be injurious to his health
Judgment & Decree
ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. Muhammad Aslam petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.115 dated 12-2-2008 registered under sections 406/471/467, P.P.C. at Police Station Gulshan-e-Ravi, Lahore on the application of Shahid Rafi.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. is that the complainant borrowed amount from the petitioner and as a security issued cheque in his favour. Then the petitioner returned the borrowed amount to the petitioner and the latter also gave back the cheque to the complainant but later on the petitioner presented a fake cheque in the Bank for encashment. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the cheque returned to him was not the original cheque and it was a scanned copy of the original one. In this way the petitioner has prepared a forged cheque.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner only presses this petition on medical ground and according to him further detention of the petitioner will be injurious to his life, who may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition and contends that the trial is being delayed due to the conduct of the petitioner, who has not been produced in the Court on various dates and the private witnesses have already been examined, but the production of the official witnesses is not in the control of the complainant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In compliance of this Court order dated 10-10-2008 the medical report has been received from the Medical Officer, District Jail Lahore. The relevant portion is reproduced here:-- "He is a patient of Hepatitis C. He also has history of Blood in Vomitus and reflects worsening of disease. The Medical Specialist from Service Hospital, Lahore recommended his Gall Bladder Operation fracture of Left Ulna Bone. His weight is also decreasing day by day. He needs investigation and management in Service Hospital Lahore which cannot be carried out inside Jail Hospital, Lahore."
6. Keeping in view the condition of the petitioner/patient, it appears that further detention of the petitioner in jail will be injurious to his health. Hence, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner fails to get the proper treatment from any recognized Medical Institution and causes any unjustified delay in the trial, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail. H.B.T./M-351/L Bail granted.