2014 PLP 672 (MLD)
ABID SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 672 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABID SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 672 (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 2014 PLP 672 (MLD)?
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: 2014 PLP 672 (MLD) (ABID SHAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Tariq Javed for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 162
Taking gratification by corrupt or illegal means to influence a public servant
Accused, who was relative of a Magistrate, was alleged to have taken illegal gratification from the complainant in order to influence the Magistrate to get a case decided in favour of the complainant
Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. and his role was obnoxious, sordid, spiteful, unpalatable and a cardinal sin
Accused seemed to be intractable, invidious and notoriety to the judiciary and did not deserve relief of bail-Accused had also been sent to jail in recent past, about ninety days earlier
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.
Abid Shah petitioner after having been imprisoned, through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No. 148 dated 2-5-2013 under section 162, P.P.C. at Police Station, Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib on the written complaint of Muhammad Riaz on the allegation that he took illegal gratification from the complainant in order to influence Mr. Khawar Rafique, Illaqa Magistrate, Police Station Sadar Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib to get a case decided in favour of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of eight days in reporting the matter to the police; prima facie from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., offence under section 162, P.P.C. is not constituted against the petitioner; the complainant has sworn his affidavit in favour of the petitioner and the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, he may be granted bail.
3. Learned D.P.G. has opposed the submissions and has argued that it is very unfortunate on the part of the petitioner that as being a relative of a judicial officer, has been deceiving and depriving the people, therefore, such like persons should not be extended discretionary relief notwithstanding the offence alleged falls outside the pale of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments heard. Record seen.
5. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. His role is obnoxious, sordid, spiteful, unpalatable, cardinal-sin and depreciative. He seems to be intractable, invidious, notoriety to the judiciary and does not deserve relief of bail as in the recent past about nineteen days earlier he has been sent to jail nevertheless the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition is dismissed. MWA/A-99/L Bail refused.