1989 P Cr (PLP)
NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 409, 468, 471 & 474‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Offences except under S.409, P.P.C. not falling within prohibitory clause‑ Report of Inquiry Officer, not clear‑‑Accused no more required for investigation‑‑Early disposal of case, not in sight‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Malik Zafar Mehmood Anjum for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa for Petitioner. Malik Zafar Mehmood Anjum for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Nazar Hussain Shah petitioner in a case under section 406/409/468/471/474, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Harnand, vide F.I.R. No. 117 of 1988 dated 14‑9‑1988.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner while working as Chairman Zakat and Ushar Committee had not only committed forgery but had also misappropriated funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry report submitted by the Tehsildar is vague; that the offences other than section 409, P.P.C. do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is in jail and no more required for investigation. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the offences other than section 409, P.P.C. do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the inquiry report submitted by the Tehsildar Jampur is not very much clear. It has simply been stated therein that: that the petitioner is in jail and no more required for investigation and that the early disposal of the case is also not in sight. For what has been said above, without making expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the view that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner has been made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Jampur. S.A./N‑218/L Bail granted.