1986 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL RASUL SHAMS Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASUL SHAMS Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL RASUL SHAMS Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Sanction for prosecution of accused having not been obtained so far‑‑Person of accused no longer required for further investigation‑‑Accused allowed bail. Muhammad Zawar Shah for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 885‑B of 1984, decided on 4th September, 1984. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Sanction for prosecution of accused having not been obtained so far‑‑Person of accused no longer required for further investigation‑‑Accused allowed bail. Dr. Khalid Ranjah for Petitioner. Muhammad Zawar Shah for the State. Petitioner is accused of offence under section 161, P.P.C. and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He is alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.500 and misappropriated some cement bags.
2. It is argued that sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has not been obtained so far and will take some time. It is further submitted that person of petitioner is no longer required for further investigation because after his arrest on 22‑4‑1984 petitioner has since been sent to the judicial lock‑up. The Police Officer present in Court does not dispute these facts. The sanction for prosecution of petitioner has not been obtained so far. Person of petitioner is no longer required for further investigation. Therefore, petitioner is allowed bail subject his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Leiah. H.A.K. Bail allowed.