1984 PLP 1394 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1394 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1394 (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 1984 PLP 1394 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1394 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Muhammad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV Of 1860), S.161--Bail, grant of--Investi gation although complete yet sanction for prosecution of petitioner still to be obtained and question whether petitioner be dealt with depart mentally or sent for judicial verdict by a Court of law yet to be decided--Petitioner allowed bail in circumstances. Tasaddaq Hussain Jilani, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Naqrullah is a Patwari who had allegedly received a sum of Rs. 100 by way of illegal gratification for verifying certain document of Munir Hussain (complainant) who wanted to obtain domicile certificate on the basis of that document. On 29-7-1984 the bribe money was recovered by the Raiding Magistrate from his person and the petitioner was arrested, who is presently lodged in judicial lock-up. As learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, declined the bail petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, he has approached this Court for the same relief.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.
3. Admittedly, the investigation is complete but sanction for prosecution of the petitioner is yet to be obtained. It is stated that it also remains to be decided as to whether the case of the petitioner will be dealt with departmentally or be sent for judicial verdict by a Court of, law. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail! bonds in the .um of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate I, Muzaffargarh. S. G. D. Bail granted.