1987 PLP r (PCRLJ)
MURID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MURID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP r (PCRLJ) (MURID HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498-- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss .218,468 & 471--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--Pre-arrest bail, grant of -- Dispute over land between uncle and nephew--Complainant admitting compromise with accused--Accused apparently 70 years old joining investigation- Investigating Officer not requiring custody of accused--Bail confirmed in circumstances. Aziz Qureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.A. Zafar for Petitioner. Aziz Qureshi for the State. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and others under section 218/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at the instance of Zafar Ali, his real brother's son. The statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that all co-accused of the petitioner except Mushtaq Ahmad Patwari and Abdul Ghafoor, retired Patwari, have already been admitted to bail, had not been denied by the investigating Officer. The statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has compromised with the petitioner, has also been corroborated by the complainant, who is present in person. The petitioner apparently is above 70 years. The case pertains to a dispute of land between the uncle and nephew. The Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioner has been joining the investigation. He has submitted that he does not want the custody of the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts enumerated above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 21-12-1986, is confirmed. He shall, however, furnish fresh bail bonds. S.A.(640/L) Bail allowed.