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.

MURID HUSSAIN versus STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Sections 498 (XLV of 1860), SS 218,468 and 471 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) before arrest, between cousin and nephew. Approval of a dispute on the land is not required to bail the accused with the investigating officer involved, apparently 70 years of age.

1987 P C r. L J 368

[Lahore]

Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J

MURID HUSSAIN--Petitioner

versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3574/B of 1986, decided on 27th December, 1986.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S.498-- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss .218,468 & 471--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--Pre-arrest bail, grant of -- Dispute over land between uncle and nephew--Complainant admitting compromise with accused--Accused apparently 70 years old joining investigation- Investigating Officer not requiring custody of accused--Bail confirmed in circumstances.

M.A. Zafar for Petitioner.

Aziz Qureshi for the State.

ORDER

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and others under section 218/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at the instance of Zafar Ali, his real brother's son.

The statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that all co-accused of the petitioner except Mushtaq Ahmad Patwari and Abdul Ghafoor, retired Patwari, have already been admitted to bail, had not been denied by the investigating Officer. The statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has compromised with the petitioner, has also been corroborated by the complainant, who is present in person.

The petitioner apparently is above 70 years. The case pertains to a dispute of land between the uncle and nephew.

The Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioner has been joining the investigation. He has submitted that he does not want the custody of the petitioner.

Keeping in view the facts enumerated above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 21-12-1986, is confirmed. He shall, however, furnish fresh bail bonds.

S.A.(640/L) 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
online advocate from Silanwala 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.