Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RAZAQ AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 537
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
RAZAQ AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 312/13 of 1987, decided on 4th October, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑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.
Ch. Liaquat Ali Sindhu for Petitioners. Sh. Munir Ahmad for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th October, 1987.
JUDGMENT
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.