2005 PLP 1810 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1810 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — 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 1810 (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 2005 PLP 1810 (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: 2005 PLP 1810 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Justin Gill for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Accused, an official of the Police Department, was in judicial lock-up and was no more required in the investigation and there was no chance of his abscondence
Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Keeping accused in jail for indefinite period, would not serve/advance the case of prosecution
Accused was entitled to grant of bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 18 dated 28-2-2005 registered under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment Faisalabad.
2. Precisely, allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as an illegal gratification from the complainant of the present case, to declare him innocent in the case F.I.R. No.122 registered at Police Station, Gulberg Faisalabad, who paid him Rs.5,000 but thereafter, the petitioner join hands with other party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case; the prosecution story is not probable; that there is delay of more than one year in lodging the F.I.R., which is not explained by the prosecution; and that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and is no more required for further investigation of the case.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
5. Heard, Record perused.
6. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and is no more required in the investigation. He is an official of the police department and there is no chance of his absconsion. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the petitioner in Jail for indefinite period of time will not serve/advance the case of prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.B.A./M-1184/L Bail granted.