2004 PLP 1836 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1836 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1836 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1836 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1836 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sheikh Javed Sarfraz, Standing Council, FIA for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Affidavit of complainant had been placed on record wherein he had stated that he paid illegal gratification to person other than accused and accused was not that peison
Record of case Produced by Law Officer had_revealed that during the investigation complainant had also filed an affidavit before Agency, stating therein that he had named both accused due to misunderstanding and that he had forgiven them
In the light of affidavits of complainant who seemed to be a man of dubious character, case of accused for grant of pre-arrest bail was made out
High Court without further dilating upon the factual aspect of the case, confirmed ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.18 of 2004, dated 13-3-2004 under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 registered at Police Station FIA, Crime Circle, Lahore.
2. In nutshell the allegation against the petitioners is that they being WAPDA employees received Rs.9,000 in different instalments from Shaukat Ali (complainant) as illegal gratification for installing Industrial Electricity Connection.
3. Heard. File perused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record an affidavit of the complainant wherein he has stated that he paid illegal gratification to one Arshad and prese4t petitioner is not the same person. Record of the case produced by they learned Law Officer reveals that during the investigation complainant has also filed an affidavit before the agency stating therein that he named both the petitioners due to misunderstanding and he has forgiven them.
4. In the light of the affidavits of the complainant who seems to be a man of dubious character, case of the petitioners for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Accordingly without further dilating upon the factual aspect of the case, this petition is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 1-4-2004 stands confirmed against the same surety bonds. H.B.T./M-618/L Pre-arrest bail confirmed.