2008 PLP 250 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 250 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 250 (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 2008 PLP 250 (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: 2008 PLP 250 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAFA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pir Masood-ul-Hassan Chishti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Offence allegedly committed by accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. and bail could not be withheld as a matter of punishment
Accused being a Government servant was not likely to abscond
Judgment & Decree
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.
Muhammad Shafa petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 19 of 2007, dated 1-9-2007 registered at Police Station section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of respect of offences and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he had demanded bribe of Rs.3,00 from the complainant namely Munir Ahmad Shahid, who was not ready to accommodate him, therefore, on his move a raid was conducted and the petitioner was caught red-handed and the tainted amount was recovered from his possession.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the complainant had filed an affidavit before the learned trill Court that he could be having no objection if the bail is granted to the petitioner, and that the petitioner being a Government servant there is no likelihood of the abscondance of the petitioner.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has strenuously opposed the bail application contending that the petitioner was caught red-handed and the tainted amount was recovered from him; and that the offence committed by the petitioner is not compoundable.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, I have concluded that offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment. I have further observed that the petitioner being a Government servant there is no likelihood to abscond. Therefore, while pinning my faith on the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) I am inclined to accept this application. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-541/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.