2011 PLP 1761 (MLD)
Sheikh MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1761 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sheikh MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1761 (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 2011 PLP 1761 (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: 2011 PLP 1761 (MLD) (Sheikh MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Khalid Farooq and Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct
F.I.R. had been registered with an extraordinary delay of more than four years without any proper explanation
Accused had allegedly embezzled various crops belonging to agronomist Research Centre and caused huge financial loss to the same
Complainant had levelled joint allegation against the accused and his co-accused
Secretary Agriculture had exonerated the accused and his co-accused from the charges
Co-accused had already been granted bail by High Court and case of accused was at par with his case
All the documentary evidence having been collected by the prosecution, the same was not likely to be tampered with by the accused
Case of accused fell within the purview of further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.
Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmad, petitioner, seeks his post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.09 dated 8-3-2010 for the offence under sections 409, P.P.C., 5(2)/47 PCA, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, District Khanewal.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner, as per contents of F.I.R., is that he being Agronomist along with his co-accused namely Muhammad Rafique embezzled/misappropriated cotton crop, wheat crop and mung beam crop belonging to Agronomist Research Station, District Khanewal and thereby caused huge financial loss to the said Research Station.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. against the petitioner was lodged with extraordinary delay of many years without any plausible explanation; that allegations against the petitioner are of general nature; that Secretary Agriculture vide his letter dated 20-3-2010 has exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him in this F.I.R.; that the prosecution has, collected all documentary evidence which is available with him and the same was not likely to be tampered with by the petitioner; that co-accused of the petitioner Muhammad Rafique was granted bail by this court vide order dated 1-9-2010 so, keeping in view the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance has been made on "Hussain Haqani v. The State" (2000 PCr.LJ 161) Karachi. In view of the above mentioned contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned D.P.-G., on the other hand, has opposed this petition on the grounds that the petitioner was involved in the embezzlement of various crops belonging to Agronomist Research Station, Khanewal and thereby caused huge financial loss to the said Research Center; that petitioner along with his co-accused Muhammad Rafique were found guilty during investigation; that the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of his co-accused Muhammad Rafique who had been granted bail by this court so, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. It has been noticed that this F.I.R. was registered on 8-3-2010 with regard to an occurrence which allegedly took place between the year 2004 to March 2006 with extraordinary delay of about more than four years without any proper explanation. Perusal of F.I.R. also reveals that the complainant has levelled joint allegations against the petitioner and co-accused Muhammad Rafique. The Secretary Agriculture vide his letter dated 20-3-2010 exonerated the petitioner as well as co-accused Muhammad Rafique from the charges levelled against them. During investigation, Deputy Director Investigation, Anti-Corruption Establishment Multan Region, Multan came to the conclusion that allegation of embezzlement of wheat crop, mung beam crop and cotton crop were proved against Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner and Muhammad Rafique Laboratory Assistant. They acted as a team. Muhammad Rafique Laboratory Assistant being the initiating official and the petitioner being the approved forum, have joint responsibility of commission of offence.
7. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of co-accused Muhammad Rafique who had already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 1-9-2010. All the documentary evidence has already been collected by the prosecution and the same was not likely to be tampered with by the petitioner.
8. For what has been discussed above, case of the petitioner comes within the purview of further inquiry. So, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-109/L Bail granted.