Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 548 2013 SLD 548 2013 PCRLJ 960
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous B. A. No. 240-D of 2012, decided on 7th November, 2012
QAISER RASHID KHAN, J
M. Ismail Alizai and Saifur Rehman for Petitioner. Kamran Hayat Miankhel for the State. M. Jehangir Awan and Muhammad Saleem Marwat for the Complainant

NASEEB KHAN

VS

The STATE through Assistant Director FIA, D.I. Khan and another

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(2)

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 5

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 406,419,420

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 419 & 420---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust, cheating and illegal gratification---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Monetary dispute---Complainant alleged that accused had illegally got encashed his cheque from bank---Validity---Statement of accused revealed that he had not denied the receipt of amount but there was some monetary dispute between accused and complainant---Complainant did not agitate the issue pertaining to the matter for over five years till he finally moved application to Federal Investigating Agency---All such factors led the matter to one of further inquiry---Bail was allowed in circumstances. JUDGMENT QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Having been refused the concession of bail from the court of learned Special Judge (Central) Peshawar vide order dated 15-10-2012, accused/petitioner Naseeb Khan has filed the instant petition for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.3 of 2012 dated 5-1-2012 registered under sections 406/419/420, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of P.C., Act at police station FIA, D.I. Khan. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely charged in the case for patent mala fide reasons; that there is no independent evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, that the offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation and thus he is entitled to the concession of bail. 3. Conversely, the learned standing counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that it is proved on record that the accused/petitioner managed to get the cheque favouring the complainant from the C&W department and succeeded in encashing the same, thus he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 4. Arguments heard and record perused. 5. As per record, on the application of complainant Aqal…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492