2012 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 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 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Zia Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Punjab Universities and Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Malpractices Act (XXXII of 1950), S.4 (as amended)
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Malpractice during examination
Allegation against accused (student) was that another person was found sitting for him in the annual examination
Contentions of accused were that he was not apprehended from the spot; that he had already been charged as "Unfair Means Case (UMC)"; that future career of accused had to be taken into account; that co-accused had already been granted bail, and that no incriminating material was available against the accused to connect him with the alleged offence
Although S.4 of Punjab Universities and Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Malpractices Act, 1950 (as amended), was non-bailable but said section did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Police and authorities instead of controlling such malpractices through procedural efficiency, had registered a criminal case to show the public at large that they were working hard to check cases of malpractice; had the staff been efficient, there should not have been any instance of the commission of such an offence
Co-accused had already been granted bail
Bail petition of accused was accepted keeping in view his career at his present age, and pre-arrest bail already granted to him was confirmed.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAQIR NAJAFI, J.
The petitioner, through this petition, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.101 of 2012 dated 12-3-2012 registered under section 5 of the University and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Mal-practices (Amendment Ordinance) 1999 at Police Station Ferozewala District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution version contained in the F.I.R., recorded on the strength of written complaint of Javed Iqbal Arshad, Center Superintendent, is that one Muhammad Zikraya son of Manzoor Ahmad was found sitting for the petitioner and solving paper for annual examination of Matriculation (Roll number not mentioned).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot; that he had already been charged, as UMC was prepared against him; that his future career must be taken into account;, that co-accused of the petitioner has been granted post arrest bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gujranwala; that no incriminating material is available against the petitioner to connect him in the alleged offence; that the petitioner has been wrongly involved in this case; that the petitioner has joined the investigation, and nothing is to be recovered from him. Hence he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail by submitting that the commission of very serious offence has been alleged against the petitioner, who is a young person and he would learn a lesson if pre-arrest bail is refused.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Section 5 of the Ordinance ibid shows that although the offence is non-bailable but it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The tendency of the police and the complainant is reflected from the very fact that instead of controlling the malpractices through their procedural efficiency, they have tried to register criminal cases to show the public at large that they are working hard to check cases of malpractice. Had the staff been efficient, there should not have been any instance of the commission of such an offence. Even Otherwise, co-accused has also been granted bail. Keeping in view the future career of the petitioner, at this stage of his age, this petition is accepted and petitioner's pre-arrest bail already granted vide order dated 5-4-2012 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing of fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.W.A./M-146/L Bail confirmed.