| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1960 2021 SLD 1960 2021 PLJ 1133 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No. 1825-B of 2021, decided on 21.4.2021, Date of hearing: 21.4.2021.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, JUSTICE.
Mr. Muhammad Faisal Bashir Choudhry, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Adnan Latif Sheikh, DPG for State with Muhammad Imran Khurshid C.O./ACE. Mr. Wajahat Hussain Langah, Advocate for Complainant.
Crl. Misc. No. 1825-B of 2021, decided on 21.4.2021, Date of hearing: 21.4.2021.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, JUSTICE.
Mr. Muhammad Faisal Bashir Choudhry, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Adnan Latif Sheikh, DPG for State with Muhammad Imran Khurshid C.O./ACE. Mr. Wajahat Hussain Langah, Advocate for Complainant.
MUHAMMAD YASIR
VS
STATE ETC.
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497
Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section: 5(2)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 161,162
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Prevention of Corruption Act, ( of 1947), S. 5(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161 162--Bail after arrest, grant of--Allegation of--Illegal gratification--Raiding Party had not heard any conversation allegedly made between petitioner and complainant before passing of alleged illegal gratification--Per trap report and perusal of prosecution case, nowhere it is contended that Magistrate had heard conversation which allegedly had taken place in between complainant and petitioner prior to passing of said illegal gratification--Before charging a public servant for alleged offence, it was incumbent upon members of Raiding Party to have heard conversation and witnessed passing of tainted notes from complainant to accused--Therefore, essential ingredients of trap are lacking in this case--Admittedly Raiding Party had advanced information but none from public was associated to witness recovery proceedings--Offence under Sections 161, PPC is also bailable in nature as per Schedule-II of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 while Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-II, 1947 carried maximum punishment of seven years, hence, does not fall within ambit of prohibition clause as contained under Section 497(i), Cr.P.C. prosecution case is wholly dependent upon government functionaries, therefore, question of tampering with prosecution evidence does not arise--Investigation of this case has been concluded and corporal custody of petitioner is not required for purpose of investigation and keeping petitioner in jail would not serve any useful purpose at this stage--Concession of bail ought not to be withheld as a punishment--Bail was allowed. [P. 1135] A PLD 2011 SC 509. ORDER Through the instant petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Muhammad Yasir is seeking post-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 08/2021, dated 08.3.2021, offences under Sections 161, 162, PPC read with Section 5(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No. II), 1947, registered with the Police Station ACE, Kahnewal. 2. According to the prosecution’s case Nadia Gill while working as Secretary Union Council had demanded…
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