2005 PLP 750 (SCMR)
EHSAN-UL-HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 750 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | EHSAN-UL-HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 750 (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 2005 PLP 750 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 750 (SCMR) (EHSAN-UL-HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saif-ul-Malook, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 2003.
- Ch. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Muhammad Ali, Investigating Officer for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27-1-2003 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6804-B of 2002).
S. 497
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Accused had allegedly instigated the co-accused to make interpolation in the bank challan and the indemnity bond was released on the documents submitted by the co-accused one of which was also signed by the accused
Accused was neither Clearing Agent nor otherwise was authorized by the co-accused Clearing Agent to get the indemnity bond cleared
Offence was punishable with three years R.I. and the accused was in Jail for the last eight months
Case of accused was not distinguishable from that of his co-accused who had already been granted bail
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Ch. Nazir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Muhammad Ali, Investigating Officer for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
The case of the petitioner is that his case was better than the case of Shahid Ali, co-accused. We summoned the Investigating Officer, who appeared today alongwith the record. He admitted that Shahid Ali was the Clearing Agent who was responsible to submit all the relevant documents for deposit of the required amount and release of indemnity bond. Shahid Ali had already been granted bail. The case of co-accused Ehsan-ul-Haq, present petitioner was that he instigated Shahid Ali to make interpolation in the bank challan after deposit of Rs.5,000 by adding 0 to make it Rs.44950 and the indemnity bond was released on the documents submitted by Shahid Ali one of which was also signed by Ehsan-ul-Haq, the present petitioner. He when questioned, admitted that Ehsan-ul-Haq was neither Clearing Agent nor otherwise authorized by Shahid Ali, Clearing Agent to get the indemnity bond cleared. The maximum sentence prescribed under the law for the offence for which the petitioner is being tried is 3 years. He is in jail for the last 8 months.
2. In our view, the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from Shahid Ali, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency, he is also entitled to the grant of bail.
3. This petition is converted into appeal, the same is accepted, judgment, dated 27-1-2003 of the High Court is hereby set aside and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./E-24/S Bail granted.