1989 PLP 4681(1) (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4681(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4681(1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4681(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4681(1) (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner.
- Riaz Ali Abbasi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑‑‑S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Ss.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Solitary public witness had exonerated accused in his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.‑‑Accused was first offender and no more required for investigation‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Ss.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Solitary public witness had exonerated accused in his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.‑‑Accused was first offender and no more required for investigation‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner. Riaz Ali Abbasi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner was arrested on 22‑2‑1989 under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition Order (E.O.H) Ordinance, 1979 on the allegation that 11 grains of heroin was recovered from his possession.
2. Bail is pleaded on the ground that the recovery is fake and that the only public witness namely, Munir Ahmad son of Muhammad Ramzan has recorded his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. denying to have witnessed any such incident. The petitioner is said to be the first offender. His person is no longer required for the purposes of investigation. In view of the above, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Okara. S.A./M‑1629/L. Bail allowed.