1978 PLP 64 (SCMR)
IJAZ AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1978 PLP 64 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---- S. 497/498-Bail-Fact of amount allegedly embezzled by accused being large--By itself, held, no ground fir refusing bail-Apprehen sion that accused might tamper with evidence if enlarged on bail also, held further, ho ground for refusal of bail-State could in such eventuality prosecute its remedies in Sessions Court-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 419/420/468/471 /409.-Bail: |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IJAZ AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 64 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 64 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---- S. 497/498-Bail-Fact of amount allegedly embezzled by accused being large--By itself, held, no ground fir refusing bail-Apprehen sion that accused might tamper with evidence if enlarged on bail also, held further, ho ground for refusal of bail-State could in such eventuality prosecute its remedies in Sessions Court-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 419/420/468/471 /409.-Bail: bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 64 (SCMR) (IJAZ AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate instructed by Noar Ahmad Noori Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 5th November 1977.
- Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate instructed by Noar Ahmad Noori Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- K. M. Iqbal, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali. Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23rd June 1997, in Cr. Misc. 2085/B of 1977).
S. 497/498-Bail-Fact of amount allegedly embezzled by accused being large--By itself, held, no ground fir refusing bail-Apprehen sion that accused might tamper with evidence if enlarged on bail also, held further, ho ground for refusal of bail-State could in such eventuality prosecute its remedies in Sessions Court-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 419/420/468/471 /409.-[Bail]: K. M. Iqbal, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali. Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
DORAB PATEL, J.‑This petition for leave has been 6!ed against an order of the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court by which the learned Chief Justice rejected the petitioner's application for bail. The charges against the petitioner are under section 419/420/468/471/409, P. P. C. and on his arrest a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 was recovered from too petitioner. The petitioner had sought bail in the Sessions Court but his application was rejected on 6‑10‑3976 on the ground that the amount involved was very large. The petitioner then challenged this order of 6‑10‑1976 in the Lahore High Court, but as this application was dismissed on 2?‑10‑1976, he bad filed a petition for leave in this Court which was dismissed on 7‑2‑1977 with the observation that the trial of the petitioner, should he expedited and that he could repeat his application after come evidence bed been recorded. The petitioner's trial has not vet commenced and he applied for bail for the second tine in the Lahore High Court sometime after the dismissal of his petition for leave. This second bail application too was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave. Mr. Zafar Mahmood presses for bail on the ground that the charges against the petitioner are not punishable with transportation for life. That is correct. On the ether hand Mr. K. M. Iqbal opposes bail on the ground that the charge the petitioner is of a grave nature because the amount embezzled was huge No doubt the amount involved is large but by itself this would be no ground for refusing bail. Mr. K. M. Iqbal then submitted that the petitioner might tamper with the evidence if enlarged on bail. If the' petitioner abuses the bail granted to him, the State can prosecute its remedies in the Sessions Court but at this stage in the absence of evidence in support of this allegation, we cannot' refuse bail, and them is no such evidence. We, therefore, admit the petition, convert it to an appeal and allow it. Bail in the sum of Ra. 20,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. Bail allowed.