1985 PLP 826 (MLD)
Syed ALTAF -HUSSAIN SHAH SHERAZI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 826 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazharul Haq, J |
| Parties | Syed ALTAF -HUSSAIN SHAH SHERAZI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 826 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 826 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazharul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 826 (MLD) (Syed ALTAF -HUSSAIN SHAH SHERAZI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Nazim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Emigration Ordinance (I1 of 1976), Ss. 17, 18 4 22--Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6--Bail--investigating Officer stating, that accused was a proclaimed offender and was arrested after four years of occurrence--Accused deprived 9 persons of money on pretext of sending them abroad--Trial commended and case fixed for evidence--Case, held, not fit for grant of bail in circumstances--Bail refused. Bashir Parvez for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Altaf Hussain Shah Sherazi petitioner is accused of the offence under sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979, read with section E of the Passport Act, 1974. Case was registered against him on 23-3-1983 at Police Station, F. I. A., Lahore. 2. petitioner is alleged to have deprived nine persons of Rs.2,05,000 on the pretext of sending them abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the occurrence took place in 1980 and that the F.I.A. has been sleeping over the matter for such a long time. Next contended that the matter has been put up because one Hafeez of Gujranwala by fraud took Rs.24,000 from the petitioner on the pretext of sending his relatives abroad and when he agitated the matter, a false case has been cooked up against him.
3. The Investigating Officer who is present with record stated that the petitioner was a proclaimed offender and was arrested in 1984. There are nine persons who are named in the F.I.R. who allegedly parted with the money on petitioner's false representation. Learned A State counsel has brought to my notice that the trial has also commenced and the case is fixed for evidence. Under these circumstances 1 do not consider it a fit case for bail. This petition is dismissed. Trial Court is, however, directed to expedite the trial in this case and if possible, the case be taken up on day to day hearing. M . Y . H . Bail refused.