Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad AslamJustin Gill,Miss Samina Shahzadi
2005 M L D 1810
2005 M L D 1810
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J
MUHAMMAD IQBAL---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4979/B of 2005, decided on 18th July, 2005.
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---Bail, grant of---Accused, an official of the Police Department, was in judicial lock-up and was no more required in the investigation and there was no chance of his abscondence---Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Keeping accused in jail for indefinite period, would not serve/advance the case of prosecution---Accused was entitled to grant of bail, in circumstances.
Justin Gill for Petitioner.
Miss Samina Shahzadi for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 18 dated 28-2-2005 registered under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment Faisalabad.
2. Precisely, allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as an illegal gratification from the complainant of the present case, to declare him innocent in the case F.I.R. No.122 registered at Police Station, Gulberg Faisalabad, who paid him Rs.5,000 but thereafter, the petitioner join hands with other party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case; the prosecution story is not probable; that there is delay of more than one year in lodging the F.I.R., which is not explained by the prosecution; and that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and is no more required for further investigation of the case.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
5. Heard, Record perused.
6. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and is no more required in the investigation. He is an official of the police department and there is no chance of his absconsion. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the petitioner in Jail for indefinite period of time will not serve/advance the case of prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
M.B.A./M-1184/L Bail granted.