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 RASUL SHAMS versus THE STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 Appropriation Code (XLV of 1860), Section 161 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) Guarantee, hitherto sanctioned for prosecution against the accused. No need for further investigation of the accused. Bail of the accused is allowed

1986 P Cr. L J 183(1)

[Lahore]

Before Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J

ABDUL RASUL SHAMS Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 885‑B of 1984, decided on 4th September, 1984.

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)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Sanction for prosecution of accused having not been obtained so far‑‑Person of accused no longer required for further investigation‑‑Accused allowed bail.

Dr. Khalid Ranjah for Petitioner.

Muhammad Zawar Shah for the State.

ORDER

Petitioner is accused of offence under section 161, P.P.C. and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He is alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.500 and misappropriated some cement bags.

2. It is argued that sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has not been obtained so far and will take some time. It is further submitted that person of petitioner is no longer required for further investigation because after his arrest on 22‑4‑1984 petitioner has since been sent to the judicial lock‑up. The Police Officer present in Court does not dispute these facts. The sanction for prosecution of petitioner has not been obtained so far. Person of petitioner is no longer required for further investigation. Therefore, petitioner is allowed bail subject his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Leiah.

H.A.K. Bail allowed.

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
best advocate from Hayatabad 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.