1988 P Cr (PLP)
KHALID MAHMOOD BOKHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Ghazanfar Ali Gondal |
| Parties | KHALID MAHMOOD BOKHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Ghazanfar Ali Gondal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (KHALID MAHMOOD BOKHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousaf Kazmi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 468, 471 & 477-A
Prevention of Corruption Act (I1 of 1947), S.5(2)--Bail, grant of- Matter of accounts--Bail granted in order to enable accused to meet charge against him. Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar assisted by Fazal-ur-Rehman for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Yousaf Kazmi for Petitioner. Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar assisted by Fazal-ur-Rehman for the State. Khalid Mahmood Bokhari, Officer, Habib Bank Limited seeks bail in case F.I.R. 2951'86, dated 23-12-1986 under' sections 409, 468, 471 and 477-A, P.P.C., section 5(2), P.C. Act, 1947. He is charged with embezzlement and criminal breach of trust to ' the tune of Rs.75,000.
2. It is stated that the case is based on false allegations and no chance was given to the petitioner to explain his position. Furthermore, he was already under arrest with effect from 15-6-1986 in connection with another case and on the registration of the present case he was formally arrested. Bail is mainly claimed on the ground that the alleged incident pertains to the period from 17-7-1984 td 24-4-1986. and he was not arrested in the case so as to deprive him of .the benefit of section 497(1)(a), Cr.P.C.
3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail. According to him being a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal he is not entitled to bail. He however, concedes that there is no previous conviction to his discredit.
4. Since it is a matter of accounts, therefore, in order to enable the petitioner to meet the charge. I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.1,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court. S.A./18/Sp.B Bail granted.