Mushtaq

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/B/2001 Mushtaq Ahmad S/o Ghulam Muhammad, caste Junaiza, R/o Basti Haji Pur, Mouza Durana Langana, District Multan. Petitioner VERSUS The State.

…………..Respondent

Petition for Post Arrest Bail F.I.R. No. 122/2001 Dated 25.3.2001 P.S. Gulgasht U/s 506 P.P.C. 27/25 Telegraph Act.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That this is the first bail application of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court, however, post arrest bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 10.4.2001 by the Judge, Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan. 2. That according to the prosecution story, complainant is the owner of Sultan Ghee Mills, Vehari Road, Multan. On 11.3.2001, he received a letter with which “SURA-E-YASIN” was attached. According to the contents of the letter some unknown persons had demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant other-wise they will kill him. On 20.3.2001, the accused has given telephone call and compelled the complainant to pay him the said amount. On 22.3.2001 the accused again gave a telephone call to the complainant due to the provision of CLI telephone number was also detected, from where the accused had given call, which

telephone No. 520260. Police was informed in time and the accused was arrested, hence the registration of this case. The certified copy of F.I.R. is annexed as Annex “A” and better copy is Annex “A/1”. 3. That the petitioner is entitled for the grant of post arrest bail inter alia on the following: GROUNDS i) That the case is false and based upon a concocted story, prima facie registered with connivance of complainant with the police. ii)

That the petitioner is innocent and roped up in this case falsely with the malafide intention.

iii)

That the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the complainant and being a landlord of the area having no reason to commit any act, such like as ascribed in the F.I.R.

iv)

That all the case is established on the hearsay evidence of complainant and private recovery which the selfexplanatory having no value in the eyes of law.

v)

That Section 506 is not attracted because the ingredients of offence are not present and it is not a schedule offence as well. Otherwise it is as per bare reading of the F.I.R. Part-I of the section is bailable.

vi)

That Section 27 of Telegraph Act neither attracted as per content of F.I.R. nor the same is a Schedule Offence falling within the jurisdiction of Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities.

vii)

That the only Section 25 f Telegraph Act is a Schedule Offence on the Schedule of Special Court Suppression of Terrorist Activities, but the part (d) of this section which is applicable to the obnoxious and threatening call is excluded from the Schedule of Special Court

Suppression of Terrorist Activities, by the judgments of the Higher Courts. viii) That the learned Lower Court committed gross illegality by deciding the bail application of petitioner and jumped out from the parameter of section 497 Cr.P.C. Copy of that order is Annex “B”. ix)

That the punishment for offences mentioned in F.I.R. does not fall within the preview of Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.

x)

That the petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest and his further detention cannot serve any useful and lawful purpose, especially when the challan is submitted in the court.

xi)

That the petitioner has no previous record or conviction on his part. Keeping in view of the above-mentioned submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the post arrest bail may please be allowed to the petitioner. Any other relief, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be extended in favour of petitioner to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner,

Dated: ___________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/2001 Mushtaq Ahmad

Vs

The State

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Bail Petition.

3

Certified copy of F.I.R. & better copy.

4

Certified copy of order.

5 6

Dispensation Application. Vakalatnama

A & A/1 B

PETITIONER Dated: ____________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No.____________/2001 Mushtaq Ahmad

Vs

The State

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE. =========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copy of Annexure “A” is not available. However, uncertified/photo-state copy of the same has been annexed with the petition, which is true copy of the original document. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of the document. APPLICANT Dated: __________ (MUSHTAQ AHMAD) Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176