Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2559 = 2010 SLD 2559 = 2010 YLR 1672
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous. No.10417-B of 2009, decided on 11th September, 2009.
Presented By: Tariq Shamim, J

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE---Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE---Respondent

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Cheating and forgery---Bail, grant of---Accused who was a property dealer, was alleged to have sold a plot purportedly owned exclusively by a person, which on verification by the complainant was not found to be exclusively owned by said person---Accused being a property dealer, was not the direct beneficiary of said transaction---According to the record and as affirmed by the counsel for the complainant, over a period of time, accused had paid' amount to the complainant---Since all the evidence was in the form of documents which had already been taken into possession by the Police, petitioner was not required by the Police for any further investigation---Even otherwise the offences with which accused was charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Delay in lodging of F. I. R. of almost two years had also not been explained by the complainant---Case being fit for grant of post arrest bail, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Haji Khalid Rehman for Petitioner. Ch. Amjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor-General. Ch. Zulfiqar Ali for the Complainant. Muhammad Aslam, A.S-I. ORDER TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 282/2009, dated 15-4-2009, for offence under sections 420,468 and 471, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner who is a property dealer sold a plot to the complainant with the connivance of one Aziz-ur-Rehman the owner thereof which subsequently was found not to be solely owned by the said Aziz-ur-Rehman as a consequence whereof the afore mentioned F.I.R. was lodged. 3. According to the learned counsel there is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. of two years that the petitioner had not received any money from the complainant; that the petitioner is a broker who had only received his commission from the complainant; that there is no allegation of preparation of any forged document by the petitioner and that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register