2002 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE SATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE SATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE SATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mughees Aslam Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 103
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3/4
Investigation against the accused had been completed and he was no more required for the purpose of investigation
Remaining two accused had not been arrested
Report under S.173, Cr.P.C. had not been prepared and forwarded to the Court for the purpose of trial
Further detention of accused in jail would not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner
All the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. and also the recovery witnesses were the police officials and no reason had been advanced that as to why the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been violated
Case against the accused not falling within the mischief of the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., bail was granted to the accused.
Judgment & Decree
Mughees Aslam Malik for Petitioner. Muhammad Rafiq Rajput for the State. Muhammad Shafiq, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.97 of 2001, dated 17-7-2001 under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station Harm Gate, Multan.
2. According to the F.I.R., the complainant Muzaffar Hussain, A.S.-I., was on. patrol duty alongwith nine other police officials in the vicinity of Chowk Haram Gate, when he received a secret information that three persons were in possession of three boxes containing the liquor. After receipt of the said information three other police officials also joined the complainant and all the 13 police officials reached the place of occurrence. The accused, who were three in number, allegedly threw the boxes and try to run away. Out of all the three accused, 13 police officials succeeded in catching hold of the petitioner. However, the other two made good their escape.
3. According to the F.I.R., 90 bottles of liquor were recovered from the boxes, out of which three bottles/cuppies were sent to .the Chemical Examiner. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that so far the remaining two accused have not been arrested. Neither the report under section 173, Cr.P.C./Challan has been prepared and forwarded to the Court for the purpose of trial. So far as the petitioner is concerned, investigation against him has already been completed. He is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Neither his further detention in jail would advance the case of the prosecution in any manner. All the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. and also the recovery witnesses are the police officials. No reason has been advanced that as to why the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. have been violated. None of the offences, in the circumstances, of the case, falls within the mischief of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. fifty thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.