Citation Name : 2008 YLR 732 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAHID

Side Opponent : State

S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419 & 420 ---bail , grant of---Offences with which accused had been charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Accused was behind the bars since his arrest on 2-12-2006---bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.



Citation Name : 2008 YLR 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (10 of 1984), Sched. ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408/420 /468/471/380-bail , refused of---Offences with which the accused were charged were mentioned in the Schedule attached with the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, provisions of which had the overriding effect, by virtue of its section 5 making the offences non-bail able---Accused were, prima facie,. connected with the commission of heinous scheduled offences---Filing of the suits by the parties for recovery of finance availed by the accused and for rendition of accounts did not negatively reflect on initiation of criminal prosecution, which would continue---Trial Court had already taken cognizance of the challan which was ripe for trial/decision and at this juncture accused were not entitled to the concession of bail ---Accused were refused bail accordingly.



Citation Name : 2008 PCrLJ 1460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUZAMMAL JAVED

Side Opponent : State

S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/420 /506---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Accused, according to record, had executed an agreement to sell his shop for a consideration of Rs.52 Lac, on the basis of which complainant had filed a suit in Civil Court which was still pending---Fate of the said agreement to sell would be determined by Civil Court in accordance with law after recording evidence of the parties---Registration of the criminal case against the accused appeared to have been filed .with mala fide intention by converting civil dispute into criminal offence---Non-compliance of agreement to sell did not constitute any offence---Dispute between the parties was of civil nature for the sale and purchase of the shop and sending the accused to jail would not strengthen the prosecution case any more, as nothing was to be recovered from him---F.I.R. had been lodged after a delay of one year anti four months which was very significant and possibility of false implication of accused could not be ruled out---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PLJ 2019 Lahore 132

PLJ 2019 Lahore 132 [Multan Bench Multan] Present: Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J. BAQIR HAMEED and another--Petitioners versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary and 4 others--Respondents W.P. No. 12396 of 2017, heard on 20.6.2018. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Recruitment of educators--Clearance of NTS and interview--Petitioners were selected--Withdrawal of appointment letters--Non-issuance of show-cause notice--Recruitment policy 2016-17--Equivalence of Master Degress--Principle of locus poenitenciae--Question of whether LLB degree would be treated equal to Graduation or Master--Determination--In advertisement for appointment, LL.B is one of academic qualifications required for purpose of appointment, which is mentioned alongwith qualification of Master Degree and degrees equivalent to Master and Bachelor are also included in prescribed qualification--Higher Education Commission vide its letter dated July 27th 2017, has declared Bachelor of la...
Read more
 Citation Name : 2008 MLD 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : Sardar MUHAMMAD ASIF Side Opponent : State S. 514--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468, 471 & 109---Forfeiture of bond---Applicant stood surety for accused, memo of surety produced by applicant was accepted by the court below and after execution of bond, custody of accused was handed over to him with direction to produce accused on each and every date of hearing in court--Surety was duty bound to cause attendance of accused in court on each and every date of hearing and failure of accused to attend the court would react on the surety---If despite of notice served on surety by the court, he failed to produce accused in court, court would be within its right and power to forfeit surety bond under S.514, Cr.P.C. and further impose fine thereby directing surety to deposit full quantum of surety bond---Accused had frequently jumped bail with intention that reduced quantum of the surety bond would be dep...
Read more