| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 916 2018 SLD 916 2018 YLR 999 |
Sindh High Court
Cr. B.A. No. 910 of 2015, heard on 19-5-2016.
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JUSTICE
Manzoor Hussain N. Larik for Applicant. S. Sardar Ali Shah A.P.G. for the State.
Cr. B.A. No. 910 of 2015, heard on 19-5-2016.
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JUSTICE
Manzoor Hussain N. Larik for Applicant. S. Sardar Ali Shah A.P.G. for the State.
SHAHNEEL GUL AND 2 OTHERS
VS
THE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 498
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,489-F
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.489-F & 34---Dishonestly issuing a cheque, common intention---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Allegation against accused petitioners was that they purchased 11000 wheat bags from Food Department as per Government policy for their floor mill and cheques were issued---Said cheques on presentation were dishonoured---Record showed that father of accused entered into transaction with the Food Department regarding purchase of wheat and he issued subject cheques in favour of District Food Controller---Later on, dispute over the quality of wheat arose between the parties, against which, suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Food Department was filed, which was sub-judice before the civil court---One of the accused filed application under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. before Ex-officio Justice of Peace regarding causing harassment by the Food Department---Said application was disposed of by directing the Food Department to conduct themselves in accordance with law and not to cause any kind of harassment---Subsequently, complainant lodged FIR regarding dishonoring the cheques---Alleged offence was punishable up to three years which did not fall within the ambit of restraining clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Challan had been submitted after completion of investigation---Charge had already been framed against the accused persons and they were regularly appearing before the court and facing the trial---Neither accused persons had misused the concession of bail nor frustrated the trial on any pretext---Trial of the case was being delayed for want of evidence of the complainant and other witnesses---Refusal of bail would not serve any useful purpose, but there was serious apprehension of humiliation and harassment of accused persons at the hands of police---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused persons was confirmed in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Bail---Principle---Observations made in bail matter was tentative in nature and trial court would decide the case strictly on merits. THIS ORDER PASSED BY:…
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