MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The allegation against the petitioner is that while collecting revenue on behalf of his father, who is a Lambardar, he had received a sum of about Rs.2,200 in excess for which he had issued receipts as well.

The Inspector, who is present, has stated that Mumtaz Ahmad, Patwari Canal, was also a party in the affair, in the sense, that he had also been collecting the revenue and issuing receipts. The Inspector has further stated that the Patwari had also received a sum of Rs.600 in excess.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patwari Canal has already been released on bail vide order of the High Court and that the case of the petitioner is at par with his co‑accused except b that there is difference of amount received by them. Learned counsel submitted that issuance of receipts shows the bona fides of the petitioner.

3. Keeping in view the above facts, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Mandi Bahauddin.

H.A.K. Bail granted.