2008 PLP 2574 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2574 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2574 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 2574 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2574 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saghir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
More than two months had gone by and accused was behind the bars without any trial
Bail was not to be refused by way of punishment
Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. Javed Rashid with Wasim Sarwar, Head Constable Police Station, ACE, Sahiwal with record. Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--As per contents of F.I.R. No.20, dated 12-11-2005 under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station ACE, Sahiwal, Ahmad complainant filed an application stating that he is owner of some land. He got Mutations Nos.220, 221 and 222 entered. The petitioner, a Patwari, received Rs.25,000, but the fee was not deposited and as such the mutations could not be taken up. A case was accordingly registered. The petitioner was arrested on 29-6-2006. His bail application has been dismissed by a learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Multan, on 5-7-2006 and a second application was rejected on 23-8-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory degree and his client is behind the bars since the last more than two months. The case has been falsely got registered. Learned counsel for the complainant says that his client has instructed him to state that he will be having no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 3.I have gone through the available records. Upon my query, the learned counsel for the State informs that the said mutations have .since been taken up and attested. Now, I find that the learned Special Judge has observed in his order, dated 5-7-2006 that the petitioner has been arrested only on 29-6-2006 and it is rather early to set him at liberty. Going by the said reasoning, more than two months have gone by and the petitioner is behind the bars without any trial. The bail is not to be refused by way of punishment. The criminal miscellaneous is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-226/L Bail granted.