2011 SCMR 870 (PLP)
SIKANDAR ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 870 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Sayed Zahid Hussain and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | SIKANDAR ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 870 (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 2011 SCMR 870 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Sayed Zahid Hussain and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 870 (PLP) (SIKANDAR ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saiful Haq Ziay, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 27-7-2009 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8382-B of 2009).
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Direction given by High Court for conclusion of trial within three months had not been complied with
Dispute was between husband and wife
Offence alleged did not fall in the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Supreme Court converted the petition into appeal and admitted the accused to bail in circumstances. Alamgir, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 140 of 2008 dated 23-3-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Garden Town, Lahore, wherein it was alleged that the cheque issued by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 100,000 in favour of complainant/petitioner's wife was dishonoured.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the allegation is false; that petitioner did not sign the cheque; that on account of strained relations, the complainant forged petitioner's signature and brought the matrimonial dispute in the domain of criminal law. Adds that the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposed the petition by submitting that the trial is in progress and that some witnesses have already been recorded but on courts query he is not in a position to say as to when the trial is likely to conclude. Even otherwise, the direction given by the High Court for conclusion of trial within three months has not been complied with. The dispute is between husband and wife and the offence alleged does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. In the afore-referred circumstances, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing security bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, he shall be released on bail. N.H.Q./S-57/SC Bail allowed.