| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3111 2025 SLD 3111 = 2025 PCRLJ 668 |
Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Criminal Misc. No. 161 of 2024, decided on 31st October, 2024.
Before Ali Baig, C.J
Burhan Ali for Petitioner. Imtiaz Hussain and Ashfaq Alam for
Respondent No. 1. Malik Sherbaz, Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Misc. No. 161 of 2024, decided on 31st October, 2024.
Before Ali Baig, C.J
Burhan Ali for Petitioner. Imtiaz Hussain and Ashfaq Alam for
Respondent No. 1. Malik Sherbaz, Dy. Advocate General for the State.
IQBAL AZAM---Petitioner
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD SHER and another---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497,497(5)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 489F
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Application for cancellation of bail, dismissal of---Pre-arrest bail was allowed to the accused-respondent, which later on was confirmed---Validity--Accused-respondent was charged for issuing a cheque in favour of complainant which was dishonoured when presented before the bank concerned, due to insufficient fund---Perusal of record should that there was five months and twenty days unexplained delay in lodging the FIR---Record showed that there was a bonafide transaction of land between the complainant and accused/respondent as the complainant had sold out one Kanal and five Marlas land to the respondent/accused in consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/- as evident from the sale deed dated 10-01-2021---Out of Rs. 85,00,000/-, Rs. 55,00,000/had been paid to the complainant by the accused/respondent---Land in question had not yet been transferred in the name of respondent/accused---Thus, the controversy/dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and that controversy could be resolved through filing a civil suit in the Civil Court, hence case of the respondent/accused required further inquiry---Moreover, offence under S.489-F, P.P.C did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, as punishment prescribed for the offence is not beyond three years---Grant of bail in the offences which do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, is a rule and refusal is an exception--Moreover, deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible in cases of bail or cancellation of bail---Where the Court of competent jurisdiction grants bail to the accused, strong grounds are required for its cancellation---For cancellation of bail, the Court has to see whether the accused after being released on bail is creating hindrance for the complainant party, tampering with the prosecution witnesses, or misusing concession of bail---Perusal of record depicted that all such ingredients were lacking in favour of the complainant---Petition for cancellation of bail being bereft of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.PLD 2005 Lahore…