2006 PLP 1550 (YLR)
NASIR ALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1550 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | NASIR ALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1550 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1550 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1550 (YLR) (NASIR ALI-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Accused had already served nearly S months in jail
Complainant and witnesses had refused to support prosecution case, which had created a dent in the prosecution story and matter required further inquiry
Offence alleged against accused providing seven years punishment, was not covered by prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Uzma Shafique for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
This bail application has been filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. for the grant of bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.60/02, dated 11-7-2002 registered at Police Station, ACE, Jhang, District Jhang under section 161, P.P.C. read with sections 5(2), 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioner is that he received Rs.30,000 as illegal gratification from the complainant for getting a job for complainant's brother in one of the Government Departments.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has already compromised with the petitioner and witnesses have also sworn affidavits whereby they have disowned the version given in the F.I.R. The witnesses are also present in the Court to support the affidavits.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been found guilty after a proper investigation. The petitioner also remained a proclaimed offender. She further submits that witnesses have supported the prosecution version through their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. She also submits that the offence is not compoundable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The petitioner was arrested on 25-1-2005 and has already served nearly 5 months in jail. Since complainant and witnesses have refused to support the prosecution case that creates a doubt in the prosecution story and the matter requires further inquiry. The offence alleged against the petitioner provides 7 years' punishment, therefore, the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. As a result of above discussion, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./N-19/L Bail granted.