Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Maulvi Anwarul HaqSaghir Ahmad Bhatti
2008 Y L R 2574
2008 Y L R 2574
[Lahore]
Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2621-B of 2006, decided on 18th September, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161---Bail, grant of---More than two months had gone by and accused was behind the bars without any trial---Bail was not to be refused by way of punishment---Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
Saghir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Javed Rashid with Wasim Sarwar, Head Constable Police Station, ACE, Sahiwal with record.
Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari for the Complainant.
ORDER
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--As per contents of F.I.R. No.20, dated 12-11-2005 under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station ACE, Sahiwal, Ahmad complainant filed an application stating that he is owner of some land. He got Mutations Nos.220, 221 and 222 entered. The petitioner, a Patwari, received Rs.25,000, but the fee was not deposited and as such the mutations could not be taken up. A case was accordingly registered. The petitioner was arrested on 29-6-2006. His bail application has been dismissed by a learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Multan, on 5-7-2006 and a second application was rejected on 23-8-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory degree and his client is behind the bars since the last more than two months. The case has been falsely got registered. Learned counsel for the complainant says that his client has instructed him to state that he will be having no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
3.I have gone through the available records. Upon my query, the learned counsel for the State informs that the said mutations have .since been taken up and attested. Now, I find that the learned Special Judge has observed in his order, dated 5-7-2006 that the petitioner has been arrested only on 29-6-2006 and it is rather early to set him at liberty. Going by the said reasoning, more than two months have gone by and the petitioner is behind the bars without any trial. The bail is not to be refused by way of punishment. The criminal miscellaneous is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-226/L Bail granted.