2007 PLP 407 (MLD)
RIAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 407 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RIAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 407 (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 2007 PLP 407 (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: 2007 PLP 407 (MLD) (RIAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akram for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 467 & 468
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5
Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R.
Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Even the beneficiaries of the disputed mutation had already been granted bail and under the rule of consistency accused was also entitled for the concession of bail--Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
Petitioner has sought his bail alter arrest in case F.I.R. No. 5(2)/2004, dated 13-8-2004 registered under section 5/2/47, PCA read with sections 420/467/468, P.P.C. on the complaint of Abdul Qayyum Khan at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Muzaffargarh.
2. Precisely the facts as per prosecution story are that Abdul Qayyum Khan complainant donated his land measuring 43 kanals and 4 marlas in favour of Jamia Hameed Taleemul Quran, Kot Sultan, District Layyah. He alleged than on the instigation of Muhammad Ilyas through anther "Waqafnama" the land owned and possessed by his son namely Anwar Ahmad Khan was proposed and he handed over the same temporarily to seminary. Consequently, Muhammad Ilyas got sanctioned site-plan from the Municipal Committee. The allegation against petitioner is that he got sanctioned mutation in collusion with his co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; that offence against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause; that at the dine of occurrence petitioner was not Patwari of Halqa concerned and even the beneficiaries of mutation have been bailed out and under the rule of consistency, petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that petitioner has been found guilty and connected with offence and is -not entitled for concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. He was arrested on 10-6-2005 and is behind the bars so far. Offence against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even the beneficiaries of the mutation have already been granted bails and under the rule of consistency petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail. .
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. H.B.T./R-63/L Bail granted.