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 self-
explanatory 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, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 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. A & A/1
4 Certified copy of order. B
5 Dispensation Application.
6 Vakalatnama

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