CASE
LAWS ON SECTION 489-F PPC
2008
2008
1.
2008 YLR 328: (Lahore)
Before Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J
Sec. 497(5) Penal Code .Sec 489-F P.P.C, Bail, Cancellation of ---- After transfer of investigation, the police, in the subsequent investigation, having declared accused as guilty, his case fell under sub-clause (ii) of S. 497(5), Cr. P.C.---Complaint,, who was necessary party, was not present at the time of granting bail to accused---Court confirmed bail before arrest of accused was found innocent and a compromise had also been effected between the parties, however in the subsequent investigation accused was found guilty--- After second investigation the police had collected record making out a reasonable ground for believing accused to be guilty of offence under Sec. 489-F, P.P.C, which was sufficient ground to re-call the earlier order obtained by misrepresentation--- Mere fact that offence against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. bail could not be claimed as a matter of right—Bail granting order passed by the Court was recalled.
Before Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J
Sec. 497(5) Penal Code .Sec 489-F P.P.C, Bail, Cancellation of ---- After transfer of investigation, the police, in the subsequent investigation, having declared accused as guilty, his case fell under sub-clause (ii) of S. 497(5), Cr. P.C.---Complaint,, who was necessary party, was not present at the time of granting bail to accused---Court confirmed bail before arrest of accused was found innocent and a compromise had also been effected between the parties, however in the subsequent investigation accused was found guilty--- After second investigation the police had collected record making out a reasonable ground for believing accused to be guilty of offence under Sec. 489-F, P.P.C, which was sufficient ground to re-call the earlier order obtained by misrepresentation--- Mere fact that offence against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. bail could not be claimed as a matter of right—Bail granting order passed by the Court was recalled.
2.
2008 YLR 760 (LAH) :
Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J
---S, 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S, 489-F--- Bail, Refusal of—
Accused seemed to be in habit of committing fraud with people--- Offence Under S, 489-F, PPC, though did not fall with in the prohibition as contained in S-497 Cr. P.C., but in the present case of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was involved—If accused was released on bail, likelihood was of his absconsion from the country--- Cases which were not covered within the prohibition clause as contained in S-497, Cr.P.C, grant of in such cases through was a rule and refusal an exception, but in view of circumstances , the case was covered within the exceptional clause of the rule---Sufficient material being available on record to connect accused with the commission of the offence., bail petition of accused was dismissed.
Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J
---S, 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S, 489-F--- Bail, Refusal of—
Accused seemed to be in habit of committing fraud with people--- Offence Under S, 489-F, PPC, though did not fall with in the prohibition as contained in S-497 Cr. P.C., but in the present case of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was involved—If accused was released on bail, likelihood was of his absconsion from the country--- Cases which were not covered within the prohibition clause as contained in S-497, Cr.P.C, grant of in such cases through was a rule and refusal an exception, but in view of circumstances , the case was covered within the exceptional clause of the rule---Sufficient material being available on record to connect accused with the commission of the offence., bail petition of accused was dismissed.
3.
2008 YLR 762 (LAH) :
Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J
---- S, 497—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S, 489-F—Bail Grant of—
Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S, 497, Cr.P.C. maximum punishment of which was only 3 years--- Accused was in jail for the last 2 months---dispute arose between the parties on account of business transaction and in that connection Civil litigation was pending between the parties before the competent Court—Accused was no more required by the police and nothing was to be recovered from him--- Keeping accused behind the bar for an indefinite period would not serve or advance the prosecution case and it would amount to punishment before the conviction, which was not permissible under Criminal jurisprudence—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J
---- S, 497—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S, 489-F—Bail Grant of—
Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S, 497, Cr.P.C. maximum punishment of which was only 3 years--- Accused was in jail for the last 2 months---dispute arose between the parties on account of business transaction and in that connection Civil litigation was pending between the parties before the competent Court—Accused was no more required by the police and nothing was to be recovered from him--- Keeping accused behind the bar for an indefinite period would not serve or advance the prosecution case and it would amount to punishment before the conviction, which was not permissible under Criminal jurisprudence—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
