1988 P Cr (PLP)
RAZAQ AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | RAZAQ AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 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: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (RAZAQ AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Liaquat Ali Sindhu for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 4th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 468 & 471‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Half of fraudulently obtained amount already recovered‑‑Accused behind bars for 3 months and not required for investigation‑‑Offence not falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Sh. Munir Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Liaquat Ali Sindhu for Petitioners. Sh. Munir Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 4th October, 1987. This is an application for grant of bail to Razaq Ahmad and Iqbal Ahmad petitioners in a case under section 420/468/471 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at P.S. City Gojra, vide F.I.R. No.81/87 dated 29‑4‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and 3 others fraudulently obtained Rs.38,000 and had also forged some documents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that out of Rs.38,000, which were fraudulently obtained by the petitioner and others. Rs.19,000 have already been recovered; that the petitioners are in jail for the last about 3 months and are no more required for investigation and that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section A 497, Cr.P.C. For what has been said above, I am of the view that a case for grant of bail to the petitioners has been made out. They are, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Jhang. S.A./R‑56/L Bail granted.