Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ABDUL RASHID versus THE STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 409 Bail, Grant of Rs 30,423 for criminal offenses of illicit pesticide and sufficient to prove a case against the police. By submitting evidence, the bail was denied.

1985 P Cr. L J 1253

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J

ABDUL RASHID‑‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3447/B of 1984, decided on 17th December, 1984.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

---S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.409‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petition criminally misappropriated pesticides valuing Rs.30,423 and sufficient evidence collected by police proving a prima facie case against him‑‑Bail declined, in circumstances.

Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioner.

A.D. Sajid for the State.

Date of hearing: 17th December, 1984.

ORDER

This is an application for bail on behalf of Abdul Rashid petitioner in case under section, 409/380 P.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station Anti- Corruption, Sargodha vide F.I.R. No.3 of 1981.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he criminally misappropriated the pesticides (medicines) of the value of Rs.30,423.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of four months in lodging the F.I.R; that the store was not checked in petitioner's presence; that the alleged offences do not fall with the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that although the case was registered in the year 1981, yet challan has not been submitted. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the plea for the bail of the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the allegation misappropriated pesticides valuing Rs.30,423; that the police has collected sufficient evidence to prove the charge; that the alleged offence under section 409, P.P.C. being punishable imprisonment for life falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for the grant of bail at this stage. The petitioner may repeat application after submission of challan A if so advised. The Investigation Officer is directed to submit challan within a month.

M.Y.H. Bail declined.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
female advocates from Mari Indus lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.