Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUMTAZ AHMED VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1397
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
MUMTAZ AHMED ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4633/B of 1993, decided on 22ndDecember, 1993.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161/165--Bail, grant of---Complainant had levelled specific allegation of having been deprived of Rs.1,45,000 by the accused---Involvement of accused during police inquiry had been established ---Co-accused was a proclaimed offender and had not been arrested---Accused had been taken into custody even less than two months back---Accused was refused bail in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana for Petitioner.
Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.
ORDER
Mumtaz Ahmed, petitioner, seeks bail in a case registered against him and others with Police Station F.IA. Ferozepur Road, Lahore for an offence under section 161/165, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had obtained Rs.1,45,000 from Gulzar Ahmad with the promise for getting him employment in WAPDA. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had received Rs.95,000 and his co-accused, who is a P.O., had received Rs.50,000.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not required for purpose of investigation any more. Argued that in any case the petitioner was not in a position to provide any sort of help to the first informant, and in such circumstances, there could not be any question of his receiving illegal gratification. Submitted that neither any recovery has been made from the petitioner nor he is required for purpose of investigation any more. Learned counsel conceded that the petitioner is not required for purposes of investigation. He also informs that the petitioner is Grade-I Officer.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. There is a specific allegation. During inquiry by the police, involvement of the petitioner was established. Complainant has levelled specific allegation against the petitioner, whereby the complainant was deprived of Rs.1,45,000. Co-accused of the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and has not been arrested. It has been less than 2 months since the petitioner was taken into custody. No ground for bail at this stage is made out. The petition fails, which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-1489/L Bail refused.