Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1618 2016 SLD 1618 2016 PLJ 481

Crl. Misc. No. 5870-B of 2015, decided on 20.10.2015. Date of hearing: 20.10.2015.
MUSHTAQ AHMAD TARAR, J.
Mr. Nadeem Ahmad Tarar, Advocate for Petitioner. Nemo for Complainant.

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF

VS

STATE and another--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Emigration Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 17/22--Bail, grant of--Delay of two years--No date, time and month of alleged payment was mentioned in FIR--Accused was not previously involved in criminal case--Offence does not fall within prohibitory clause--Validity--Accused received money from complainant for sending his three relatives foreign country, but lateron neither his relatives were sent abroad nor accused returned his amount--Allegedly amount was received by petitioner in year 2013, but FIR was lodged on report made after two years--Accused was not previously involved or convicted in any other such case--Further detention of accused in jail will not serve any useful purpose--As alternative, sentence of 14 years or with fine or with both has been provided for offence charged against petitioner, it will be determined during trial that which sentence has to be awarded to petitioner--Case of petitioner becomes one of further inquiry--Bail was allowed. ORDER Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., Muhammad Yousaf petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No. 290 dated 22.07.2015, registered under Section 17/22, EO 1979 at Police Station FIA/CC Multan, District Multan at the instance of Muhammad Niaz complainant. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent; that there is delay of 02 years in lodging the FIR, which makes the case doubtful; that no date, time and month of the alleged payment is mentioned in the FIR; that during investigation nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner is behind the bar since 02.08.2015 and he is not previously involved in any criminal case; that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He has placed reliance upon TahirMehmood v. State and another (PLD 2012 Cr.C. Lahore 112) and Hamid Ali v. The State (2009 SCMR 734). 3. Conversely, the learned Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner fraudulently received huge amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- from the complainant and said amount was deposited in the account of his wife; that case does fall within the…
🔒
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