1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑--S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161/420/468/471‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Offence not falling under prohibitory clause of S.497, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Accused in jail‑‑Not required for investigation‑‑Accused allowed bail in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Asghar Ali for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Akram petitioner in a case under section 420/468/471/161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at P.S. Anti‑Corruption, Okara vide F.I.R. No. 5/85.
2. The allegations are that the petitioner who is a Kanungo made alteration in R.L. 2 and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the petitioner having been sent to judicial lock up is no more required for investigation. No one has appeared for State to oppose this application.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner was arrested on 13‑10‑1985 that he is now in the jail and no more required for investigation and that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C.
5. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Okara. S.A Bail granted