P L D 2009 Islamabad 9 (PLP)
IKRAM ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2009 Islamabad 9 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IKRAM ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2009 Islamabad 9 (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 P L D 2009 Islamabad 9 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2009 Islamabad 9 (PLP) (IKRAM ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Tanvir Choudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.223 & 224
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Offences with which accused was charged except the one under S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were bailable
Prosecution had failed to collect any evidence regarding allegation of receiving illegal gratification
Challan though had been submitted in the court, but no progress was made in the trial
Incarceration of accused at trial stage would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to punishing him without a trial
Co-accused having been granted bail, keeping in view the principle of consistency accused also deserved the same concession
Judgment & Decree
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.
The petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R No.171 dated 11-4-2008 for offences under sections 223, 224, P.P.C. and 5(2)/47, Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Margalla, Islamabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while performing their official duties, facilitated the accused Muhammad Hussain and Javed Iqbal, an under trial prisoners to slip away from the police custody.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that bail of the co-accused has been allowed by this Court, hence in view of principle of consistency petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. He further submitted that allegations levelled in the F. I. R are fake and petitioner has been involved in this case just to save the skin of senior officers. He further adds that allegation of illegal gratification is not supported by any independent evidence; He further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and investigation of this case has been completed; that his further detention in jail will serve no useful purpose to the prosecution. He further submitted that investigation of this case was conducted by an S.I. who was not competent to investigate the matter under the law.
4. Learned Federal Counsel strongly opposed this bail petition on the ground that there is no mala fide on the part of police to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case; that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation. However, he conceded that role of the co-accused who has been allowed bail is at par with the present petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the record.
6. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. All the offences except offence under section 5(2)/47 Prevention of Corruption Act, are bailable. Prosecution has failed to collect any evidence regarding allegation of receiving illegal gratification. Although challan has been submitted in the Court yet there is no progress in the trial so far. Further incarceration of the petitioner at this stage would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to punishing him without a trial. Moreover, the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioner also deserves the same concession.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./I-41/ISL Bail granted.