1990 PLP 181 (MLD)
ANWAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 181 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ahmad Sipra, J |
| Parties | ANWAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 181 (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 1990 PLP 181 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sajjad Ahmad Sipra, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 181 (MLD) (ANWAR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/161‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑All offences with which accused was charged in F.I.R. were not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑No eye‑witnesses were named in F.I.R which made it the case of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for the State.
Judgment & Decree
2. According to the F.I.R., the accused/ambulance driver had extracted Rs.400 from the complainant, Habib‑ur‑Rehman, with the promise to transport his brother‑in‑law, Ghulam Hussain who had been injured in a motor‑cycle accident to the B.V. Hospital in Bahawalpur from Ahmedpur East, the place of accident. It is further stated that the accused never turned up at the place of accident alongwith his ambulance to transport the injured to the Hospital in Bahawalpur. Hence this complaint against him.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 28‑1‑1989 and he is in the judicial lock up.
4. The petitioner/accused had moved a bail application before the Special Judge, Anti‑‑Corruption, Bahawalpur, but the same was rejected vide order dated 2‑2‑1989.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for bail on the following grounds:‑ (i) That there is a delay of one year in the registering of the F.I.R. without any explanation for the same; (ii) That no eye‑witnesses are named in the F.I.R., therefore, it is a case of further inquiry; (iii) That at best it is a case of cheating under section 420, P.P.C. which is bailable; (iv) That the petitioner/accused is in the judicial lock‑up and is no longer required by the police; and (v) Lastly that all the sections namely, section 420/161 of the P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P C.
6. The learned counsel for the State contends that as the complaint was processed before the registration of the case against the petitioner/accused, therefore, it took so much time and that by itself is sufficient to explain the delay in the lodging of the present F.I.R. The facts and circumstances of the present case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not refuted by the learned counsel for the State.
7. In view of the fact offences stated in the F.I.R., namely, section 420/161 of the P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P.C., and as there are no eye‑witnesses named in the F.I.R. which makes it a case of further inquiry, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Court. N.H.Q./A‑776/L Bail granted.