Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LIAQAT ALI VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Malik Haq NawazMian Naseem Akhtar
2019 Y L R Note 27 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Malik Haq Nawaz, J LIAQAT ALI---Petitioner Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No. 190 of 2018, decided on 15th November, 2018. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 170, 419, 420, 468 & 471---Personating public servant, cheating by personation, cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged---Bail, refusal of---Offence against society---Scope--- Record revealed that petitioner and co-accused were charged for issuing fake appointment orders in police department to various persons---Accused, including petitioner, were extracting huge amount from innocent people---Recoveries of incriminating articles had also been effected from the petitioner---Petitioner was charged with the offence which was an offence against the society and needed to be dealt with iron hands---Sufficient evidence was available against the petitioner, which disentitled him for concession of bail---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances. Mian Naseem Akhtar for Petitioner. Dy. Advocate General for the State. Date of hearing: 15th November, 2018. ORDER MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Liaqat Ali has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.08/2018 under sections 170, 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Airport. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who vehemently contended that two co-accused of the petitioner have been allowed bail. One of the co-accused Naqeeb Shah, whose bail was referred up to this Court, has been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 27-08-2018 and bail cancellation application has not been moved by the State for setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate either before the learned Sessions Judge and or before this Court. The petitioner is first offender, who is no more required for further investigation and his further detention will not serve any useful purpose, as some of the petitioner. 3. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the petition with vehemence. The learned Dy. Advocate General was asked as to whether any bail cancellation application has been moved by the State, against the co-accused of the petitioner, who were booked for the similar allegations. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that a bail cancellation application of co-accused Naqeeb Shah has been moved, which is fixed for arguments before the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit. 4. The petitioner and co-accused are charged for issuing fake appointment orders to the various persons in police department and were extracting huge amount from the innocent people. Recoveries of incriminating articles have also been effected from the petitioner. The offence with which the petitioner/accused is charged with, is an offence against the society and needs to be dealt with iron hands. There is sufficient evidence available against the petitioner, which dis-entitles him for concession of bail. The bail is accordingly declined. Needless to say that bail though is a discretion but the same has to be exercised keeping in view the gravity of the offence and its effects on the society at large. 5. Bail petition is declined. File be consigned to record after due completion. MQ/224/G Bail declined.