| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1652 2025 SLD 1652 =2025 YLR 147 |
Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Criminal Misc. (BA) Nos. 298, 311 and 312 of 2023, decided on 30th November, 2023.
Before Ali Baig, CJ
Farhan Ali and Rashid Umar for the Petitioner/accused in all petitions. Malik Sherbaz, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Mubashir Hussain, for the Complainant (in C.M. No. 298 of 2023). Burhan Wali Khan for the Complainant (in C.M. No. 311 of 2023). Nouman Hameed for the Complainant (in C.M. No. 312 of 2023). Date of hearing: 24th November, 2023.
Criminal Misc. (BA) Nos. 298, 311 and 312 of 2023, decided on 30th November, 2023.
Before Ali Baig, CJ
Farhan Ali and Rashid Umar for the Petitioner/accused in all petitions. Malik Sherbaz, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Mubashir Hussain, for the Complainant (in C.M. No. 298 of 2023). Burhan Wali Khan for the Complainant (in C.M. No. 311 of 2023). Nouman Hameed for the Complainant (in C.M. No. 312 of 2023). Date of hearing: 24th November, 2023.
Syed RAZA FAROOQ and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 489F
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque--Bail, refusal of---Habitual offender---Apprehension of abscondance---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he had dishonestly issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant to pay the liability of rent of a plot, which was dishonoured on presentation before the concerned bank---From perusal of record it transpired that the accused/petitioner was involved in three criminal cases registered under S.489-F, P.P.C---Admittedly, accused/ petitioner had issued three cheques to complainants which on presentation before the concerned bank bounced due to insufficient amount in the account of the present petitioner/accused---No possibility of false implication of the petitioner or substitution or mistaken identity existed because he was known to the complainants---Accused/petitioner though was not convicted in any case previously, but his involvement in three cases of similar nature was sufficient to declare him habitual offender and apprehension existed that if he was released on bail, he could repeat the offence and there also existed apprehension that he would abscond after release on bail, as he belonged to another Province---Offence with which the petitioner/accused was charged, no doubt did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---But it was not rule of law that in each and every case which is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years, bail must be granted to the accused without considering the gravity of the offence---Courts cannot be oblivious to the material collected by prosecution and after looking into it and making tentative assessment of evidence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out it can refuse bail even in cases which are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years--Bail petitions being devoid of merit were dismissed, in circumstances.PLJ 2008 Cr.C.(Lahore) 63; 2023 PCr.LJ 499; 2022 SCMR 592; 2023 PCr.LJ 823; 1998 PCr.LJ 821; 2022 PCr.Lj 146; PLD 2006 Lahore 752; 2011 SCMR 1708; PLD 2013 Lahore 442; 2012 PCr.LJ 1858;…