Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3046 = 1980 SLD 3046 = 1980 SCMR 269
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 50 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 71-P of 1979, heard on 29th September, 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 19-9-1979, in Cr. Misc. No. 644/79).
Presented By: G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ
Muhammad Masood Kausar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Inayat Elahi, A.-G. and Amir Zada Khan. A. A.-G. (N.-W.F.P.) for the State.

MUHAMMAD AZAM AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497-Bail before arrest-Points raised justifying grant of pre -arrest bail to petitioners-Orders of Courts below not taking such aspects of case into consideration-Orders, held, suffer from omission to apply relevant law in cases of such type-Case being fit for inter ference by Supreme Court, petition converted into appeal and bail granted.-[Appeal (criminal)]. Date of hearing : 29th September, 1979.                                                                                                           ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioners are involved in a case registered against them as per F. I. R. No. 4 dated 7th October 1979, at Police Station, Paharpur, under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) and under section 409, P. P. C. for having constructed a drain in the area of the Town Committee, Paharpur against the requisite specifications. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that the actual work was got done by the petitioners themselves though on paper one Ranjhoo was shown as its contractor. The petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail but the same was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, on 26th July 1979 and by the Peshawar High Court on 19th September 1979, on the sole ground that the aforesaid contractor has given a statement in which he had admitted and disclosed that the work was got done through him on paper and that in fact the petitioners themselves were reaping the benefit of the said contract. 2. The petitioners have come up in a petition for leave to appeal against the same to this Court. The case was. put up on 24th September 1979 when a notice was issued to the State. It has come up today before us after notice. It has been argued that :- (a) that the F. I. R. does not contain the name of any first informant. This is deliberate for the purpose of escaping the ultimate liability for false prosecution. All…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register