Ghulam Murtaza vs State S — 2024 MLD 1854 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Ghulam Murtaza VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 409, 417, 420, 465, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Record transpired that the present accused/petitioner, had been implicated in the offences which were prima facie not attracted against him---No denial of the fact that publication of the tender in the PEPRA website was the prime and principle liability/responsibility of the then District Health Officer according to the rules, being sole custodian of the concerned department, but it seemed that the same liability had been malafidely/ dishonestly shifted to junior staff member who was even not the concerned/ministerial staff, rather he was technical staff---This was against the law/rules and such dishonest act of the concerned authority created serious doubts and dents in the case of the prosecution---Admittedly and surprisingly one of the co-accused who had been allegedly attributed an identical role had been released by the police under S.169, Cr.P.C.---Moreover, the then District Health Officer had also been exonerated and given clean chit from the Investigation Officer of the present case, which also attracted the universal, "Rule of Consistency" in favor of the present accused/petitioner---Undoubtedly, offences under Ss. 417, 420, 465, 471, P.P.C, were bailable offences, whereas offence under S.409, P.P.C, fallen within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, which prima facie was not attracted in the present case to the extent of the present accused/petitioner---Matter in hand required further probe into the guilt of the accused/petitioner---In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception---Accused/petitioner was behind the bars for the last couple of months, waiting for commencement of the trial of the case---Investigation of the case was complete and the present accused/petitioner was no more required for further investigation---Thus, the case of the accused/petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of S.497(2) Cr.P.C, entitling him for the concession of post arrest bail and the same was allowed, in circumstances.

Ghulam Murtaza vs State S — 2024 MLD 1854 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD