1990 P Cr (PLP)
SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Liaquat Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4-- Bail, grant of
House of accused was raided by police on secret information
No search warrant was obtained for searching the house of the accused
Offence was not committed at a public place
Whether case was cognisable or not, was open to question
Bail was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Hayat v The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1353 and Mukhtar alias Karoo v The State 1988 P Cr. L J 591 ref Ch. Liaquat Ali for Petitioner. Nemo for the State Suleman petitioner seeks bail in a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979). It is alleged that a secret information was received that he indulged in drugs trafficking on which a raiding party comprising S.H.O., Police Station Sukheki and other police officials was formed and the house of the petitioner was raided on 27-1-1989. It is also alleged that he was found selling drugs. 120 grams of heroin and 295 grams of opium were recovered from a box lying there. Bail is urged on the grounds that there is no public witness to the alleged/recovery Since the alleged offence was not committed at a public please, it was non-cognisable and the police could not investigate. Furthermore, the police did not obtain search-warrants from the Collector, Prohibition Officer or Magistrate before carrying out search of the petitioner's house. Reliance has been placed on Hayat v The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1353 and Mukhtar alias Karoo v The State 1988 P Cr. L J
591. The petitioner is behind the bars since January, 1989 without any progress in the trial.
3. Admittedly,, no search warrant was obtained by the raiding party for making a search of the petitioner house. The cognoscibility of the offence under Article 3/4 not committed at a public place is also open to question. In these A circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.35,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Hafizabad. S.A./S-682/L Bail grantedBail allowed.