| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 334 2017 SLD 334 2017 MLD 146 |
Sindh High Court
Cr. Bail Application No. S-761 of 2015, decided on 3rd December, 2015. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2015.
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JUSTICE
Qurban Ali Malano for Applicant. Syed Sardar Ali Shah A.P.G. for the State.
Cr. Bail Application No. S-761 of 2015, decided on 3rd December, 2015. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2015.
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, JUSTICE
Qurban Ali Malano for Applicant. Syed Sardar Ali Shah A.P.G. for the State.
IMTIAZ ALI--Applicant
VS
. THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------.-------S. 497------.-------Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161------.-----Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)------.-----Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect to an official act------.-----Criminal misconduct------.-----Bail, grant of------.-----Accused apparently had no direct nexus with the issue of alleged refund of security deposit------.-----Complainant, as per the FIR, had paid Rs.30000 to the accused instead of Rs.15000------.-----Mashirnama showed that fifteen currency notes with denomination of Rs.1000 each had been allegedly tainted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, and during search, only an amount of Rs.6000 had been recovered from possession of the accused instead of Rs.15000------.-----Raid had been conducted under the supervision of the Magistrate and complainant had gone inside of the office and made payment of the tainted currency notes to the accused, but the raiding party had remained away/outside of the office of the accused; therefore, the raiding party had neither heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused nor witnessed the factum of payment of alleged tainted money------.-----Challan of the case had already been submitted and the accused was no more required for investigation------.-----Accused had been behind the bars for four months, but the prosecution had failed to examine even a single witness to substantiate the charge against him------.-----Offences under S. 161, P.P.C. read with S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, hence, the same did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 (1), Cr.P.C------.-----Bail application was allowed accordingly. Saleem Jan (Naib Tehsildar) and another v. The State and another PLD 2011 SC 509; Muhammad Suleman v. The State 2013 PCr.LJ 1051; Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed Seehar v. The State 2014 YLR 1385 and Nazar Mohammad v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 175 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------.-------S. 497------.-------Bail------.-----Principles------.-----Concession of bail ought not…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492