1993 PLP 2230 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2230 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2230 (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 1993 PLP 2230 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2230 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Ahmad Oureshi for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/406/467‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Ample evidence had been collected during investigation to show that the accused had received money from many persons with the promise to give them allotment orders in respect of State land which had connected him with the commission of the offence‑‑‑Accused was refused bail in circumstances. Rana Nasim Sabir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/406/467‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Ample evidence had been collected during investigation to show that the accused had received money from many persons with the promise to give them allotment orders in respect of State land which had connected him with the commission of the offence‑‑‑Accused was refused bail in circumstances. Ijaz Ahmad Oureshi for Appellant. Rana Nasim Sabir for the State. Date of hearing: 9th May, 1993. Muhammad Rafique petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and others with Police Station ACE, District Lahore, for offences under section 420/468/471/406/467, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, vide F.I.R., dated 1‑6‑1987. The case was got registered by Deputy Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore with the allegation that the petitioner alongwith others had prepared forged documents in respect of many persons and given them allotment orders in respect of State land.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a clerk of an Advocate and has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. Argued that no recovery of any type has been effected from him, and, in these circumstance, he cannot be connected with the alleged occurrence. Argued that all the co‑accused of the petitioner have since been released on bail and the rule of consistency demands that the petitioner should also be allowed the same concession. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. During investigation the police has been able to record statements of 30 witnesses. All of them stated that the petitioner had received money from them with the promise to give them allotment orders in respect of State land. Learned counsel for the State informs that there are 80 other people who were defrauded by the petitioner on the same pretext, and the investigating officer is likely to conclude recording of their statements within two months. There is ample evidence which connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence. No ground for bail at this stage is made out. The petition fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1145/L Bail refused