1989 P Cr (PLP)
ALEEM JAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhmnmad Dogar, J |
| Parties | ALEEM JAFFAR‑‑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: Sardar Muhmnmad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (ALEEM JAFFAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khalilur‑Rehman for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Bail before arrest‑‑Interim bail granted to accused who applied for confirmation thereof‑‑Argument on behalf of defence that accused was being involved due to mala fides gaining support from facts stated‑‑Prosecution conceded that except affidavit of an accomplice, Investigating Officer had not been able to collect any other evidence‑‑Statement of an accomplice could not be considered enough to ultimately base conviction thereon‑‑Interim bail confirmed. Muhammad Idrees for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Idrees for the State. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1989. Anticipatory bail has been sought by the petitioner in the case registered against him under section 39‑A of the Electricity Act, 1910, read with section 379, P.P.C. The case was registered on the report of Mr. Sohail Tariq, S.D.O.
2. The background of registration of the case is that one Muhammad Amin was found using electricity by having got fixed an unauthorised meter without sanction of the proper authorities. On his being caught, he submitted an affidavit that the meter had been provided to him by the petitioner after charging a sum of Rs.700 as illegal gratification and that the petitioner had told him that it was a sanctioned one.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has conceded that except the affidavit submitted by Muhammad Amin, the Investigating Officer has not been liable to collect any other evidence in this regard.
4. In the circumstances the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that statement of an accomplice cannot be considered enough to ultimately base the conviction, bears force. The argument that the petitioner was being involved due to mala fides, also gains some support on account of the facts noted above.
5. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The interim pre‑arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 27‑2‑1989 is confirmed. He shall, however, file fresh bail bonds and join the investigation as and when called. M.Y.H./A‑723/L Bail confirmed.