Find a Lawyer

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

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

SYED MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN versus THE STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Sections 439 and 497/498 Immigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Section 22 Receives Rs. 22, 48,000 from persons seeking employment abroad KJ judge imposes bank guarantee on the said amount. Implementation of such condition was illegal and unstable

1986 P Cr. L J 2676

[Lahore]

Before Riaz Ahmad, J

Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE‑-----Respondent

Criminal Revision No. 126 of 1986, decided on 20th April,1986.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑--

‑‑‑Ss. 439 & 497/498‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S. 22‑ Accused receiving Rs.22, 48,000. from persons for .securing employment abroad‑‑While granting bail, trial Judge imposing condition of furnishing bank guarantee in said amount‑‑Imposition of such condition, held, was illegal and unsustainable.

Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri and others v. The State P L D 1963 SC 478 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahlah for Petitioner.

Akhtar Shabbir, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 20th April, 1986.

ORDER

The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has frankly conceded, that the condition imposed by the learned Special Judge Central; while granting bail is unsustainable. The petitioner is involved in a case under the Emigration Ordinance; 1979, and allegedly he had received Rs.22,48,000 from 203 persons for securing employment for them abroad. In this background the learned Special Judge Central imposed a condition, while admitting the petitioner to bail, that he shall furnish Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.22,48,000 because it was apprehended, that the petitioner would abscond. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri and; others v. The State P L D 1963 S C 478, the imposition of condition is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge Central imposing the aforesaid condition.

2. Prima facie the, petitioner has defrauded about 203 persons for an amount equivalent to Rs.22,48,000, I would, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be admitted to bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lacs only), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. Central.

With these observations, this petition is disposed of.

S.A. Bail accepted.

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
family advocate from Chilas 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.