Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKHTAR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Raja Muhammad Shafqat Khan AbbasiMalik Sajjad Ahmad Wains
2009 P Cr
2009 P Cr. L J 1136
[Lahore]
Before Raja Muhammad Shafqat Khan Abbasi, J
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE and another----Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1206/B of 2009, decided on 7th May, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Bail, grant of---Counsel for accused had admitted his liability to the extent of Rs.4,00,000 in his petition and he undertook to pay the said amount within two months---Section 489-F, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was in jail for the last five months and he could not be kept in jail for an indefinite period on the whim or caprice of the prosecution---Investigation had already been completed and accused was no more required for further investigation---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Amir Iqbal Chaudhary v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 155; Aman Ullah v. The State 2007 YLR 1120; Muhammad Nadeem 2007 MLD 926 and Saeed Abbas v. the State 2008 PCr.LJ 1140; 2008 MLD 255 and 2008 MLD 243 rel.
Malik Sajjad Ahmad Wains for Petitioner.
Malik M. Tariq Rajwana for the Complainant.
Syed Mukhtar Masood Bukhari, Dy. D.P.P. with Peer Bakhsh, A.S.-I. for the State.
ORDER
RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.--Petitioner, namely, Muhammad Akbar son of Ghulam Muhammad, by filing this petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F,I.R. No.1072, dated 30-12-2008 under section 489-F, P,P.C, registered with Police Station Sadar Dora Ohazi Khan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner according to the F,I,R, registered at the instance of Muhammad Bashir complainant was that he issued a cheque of Rs,13,00,0000 In favour of the complainant which on presentation before the drawee Bank was dishonoured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that investigation has already been completed. Person of the petitioner is no more required by the police. Challan has already been submitted in the trial Court. The petitioner is behind the bar for more than 5 months. Cheque in question was given during the business transaction. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits its liability to the extent of Rs.3,30,000 and he has paid Rs.70,000 and he is ready to pay remaining Rs.3,30,000 within a period of two months. He has placed reliance on Amir Iqbal Chaudhary v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ Aman 155, Ullah v. The State 2007 YLR 1120, Muhammad Nadeem 2007 MLD 926 and Saeed Abbas v. The State 2008 P.Cr.L.J.1104.
4. Learned D.D.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that role has been attributed to the petitioner. Cheque in question and the dishonoured slip is admitted by the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He has, placed reliance on 2008 MLD 255 and 2008 MLD 243.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has admitted his liability to the extent of Rs.4,00,000 in his petition. He undertakes to pay the same within two months. Section 489-F, P.P.C. does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause. The petitioner is in jail for the last five months and he cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period on the whim or caprice of the prosecution. Investigation has already been completed and the accused petitioner is no more required for further investigation.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial. Court.
H.B.T./M-313/L Bail granted.