Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2623/B of 1987, decided on 4th August, 1987.
---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 471 & 109--Bail- Accused neither a Government servant nor named in F.I.R. but involved in case on the statement of co-accused before Police--Accused in judicial lock-up and not required for further investigation--Bail allowed in circumstances.
Malik Muhammad Khan Awan for Petitioner.
C . M . Latif for the State.
This is an application for bail in a case registered under section 420/468/471/109, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and he has been involved in the case merely on the statement of one Iqbal who is co-accused in the case. It has been contended on the basis of judgment reported as Zainul Zahideen v. State 1986 P Cr. L J 1022 that involvement of a person on the statement of co-accused in a case would entitle such person to the grant of bail and such an involvement would not be such to disentitle the petitioner to the grant of bail. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and no recovery of any substance whatsoever has been made from the petitioner uptil now.
3. On the other hand it is admitted by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and no recovery whatsoever has been made from him and the petitioner was involved in the case on account of statement of Iqbal co-accused during investigation before the police. It has also not been denied that maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that one Amin who is the main culprit owed some amount of money to petitioner's deceased father and when the petitioner asked for the return of the said money the said Amin got him involved in this case in order to pressurize him not to demand that amount.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and without commenting upon the merits of the case I find that the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner prima facie has force. The petitioner is not admittedly a Government servant and he has not been named in the F. I. R. He has admittedly been involved in the case on account of statement of Iqbal co-accused before the police and according to the judgment as referred to above the petitioner has been able to make out a case for bail. No recovery has been made from him and he is in the judicial lock-up. It has been stated by Muratab Ali Shah, Investigating Officer that the petitioner is not required in these circumstances for further investigation.
5. For the foregoing reasons this application is allowed. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the alike amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
M.A. K. /S-93/L
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer