Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3135‑B of 1985, decided on 18th January, 1986.
‑‑‑--S. 497‑‑Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.5(6)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420, 467/468, 471/477‑A & 109‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑High Court, held, has jurisdiction to grant bail in Bank fraud cases not hit by S.5(6) of Ordinance IX of 1984‑‑Bar contained in S.5(6) of Ordinance found to be applicable to case of accused‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.
Muhammad Yaqoob Ali v. The State P L D 1985 Lah. 48 ref.
Muhammad Jahangir Wahla for Petitioner.
This is an application for bail. A case is registered against the petitioner under sections 409/420, 467/468, 471/ 477‑A and 109, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by F.I.A. Lahore, on 4‑9‑1985. His application for bail was originally considered by the Special Court (Banking) Lahore and it 'was rejected as it was alleged that prima facie it was a case in which the petitioner had committed offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that he filed applications for grant of loan to M.C.B. Chak Jhumra, Faisalabad in the names of eight persons including his dead father by forging signatures of six loanees on the said applications and by getting false thumb‑impressions on the application of his father and one Muhammad Hanif and thus obtained a total sum of Rs.47,536. In paragraph 4 of the order of the Special Judge (Banking) it is briefly stated as to how he has committed this forgery, particularly, in respect of his dead father. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel. He has placed reliance on Yaqoob Ali v. The State P L'D 1985 Lah. 48. We are aware that we have the discretion to allow bail in cases of Bank fraud, but in our considered opinion only in such cases which are not hit by section 5(6) of Ordinance IX of 1984. In the present case in our view the bar contained in the aforesaid section appears to be applicable and, therefore, we are not inclined to allow bail to the petitioner. This application is, therefore, dismissed.
H.A.K. Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer