Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUKHTAR AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE-
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Dr. Javed Iqbal, Sh. Ijaz Nisar Title: MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE- Case No.:Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3135-B of 1985 cases not hit by S.5(6) of
Ordinance IX of 1984 Date of Judgment:1986-01-17 Reported As: 1986 P Cr. L J 2407 Result: Bail refused Judgment ORDER JAVID IQBAL, C.J.--This is an application for bail. A case is registered against the petitioner under sections 409/420, 467/468, 471/ 477-A and 109, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by F.I.A. Lahore, on 4-9-1985. His application for bail was originally considered by the Special Court (Banking) Lahore and it 'was rejected as it was alleged that prima facie it was a case in which the petitioner had committed offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that he filed applications for grant of loan to M.C.B. Chak Jhumra, Faisalabad in the names of eight persons including his dead father by forging signatures of six loanees on the said applications and by getting false thumb-impressions on the application of his father and one Muhammad Hanif and thus obtained a total sum of Rs.47,536. In paragraph 4 of the order of the Special Judge (Banking) it is briefly stated as to how he has committed this forgery, particularly, in respect of his dead father. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel. He has placed reliance on Yaqoob Ali v. The State P L'D 1985 Lah. 48. We are aware that we have the discretion to allow bail in cases of Bank fraud, but in our considered opinion only in such cases which are not hit by section 5(6) of Ordinance IX of 1984. In the present case in our view the bar contained in the aforesaid section appears to be applicable and, therefore, we are not inclined to allow bail to the petitioner. This application is, therefore, dismissed.