1993 P Cr (PLP)
NAZIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 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: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (NAZIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dost Muhammad Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4-- Bail
Accused at the time of recovery was sitting on the front seat of the truck alongwith the co-accused and hence both of them were equally engaged in transporting huge quantity of Charas
Such persons could not be let loose on society who spread and import narcotics from the tribal area causing cancer of drug addiction
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4-- Bail
Accused at the time of recovery was sitting on the front seat of the truck alongwith the co-accused and hence both of them were equally engaged in transporting huge quantity of Charas
Such persons could not be let loose on society who spread and import narcotics from the tribal area causing cancer of drug addiction
Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Dost Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. M. Saleem Shad for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1992. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner and his co-accused namely Sartaj and Sial Jan were found transporting about 25 maunds of Charas from Khyber Agency to Punjab Province. They were apprehended at Jhang Chiniot Road near Bhawana. In fact, a secret information was received by complainant Haji Ghulam Qasim, Inspector S.H.O. about the transportation of Charas. Thus, a raiding party was formed, and the truck bearing No. PRM 5981 was checked, and the secret information was proved to be true, as the Charas was found underneath the Chipps loaded inside the aforesaid truck. Accordingly, the petitioner and the co-accused were -apprehended, and the truck was also taken into custody.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued, that it was a fit case for the grant of bail as the petitioner is in jail for the last 10 months. It has been further contended that the recovery of Charas has taken place from a truck which was being driven by Sial Jan who belonged to the tribal area, and the petitioner had nothing to do with the recovery, as he was -only sitting on the front seat of the truck. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not the owner of the truck, and therefore, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the commission of offence. 3. 1 have heard both the learned counsel at length, and have perused the relevant police record. Of, course the petitioner does not belong to the tribal area, but at the time of recovery he was sitting on the front seat of the truck alongwith the co-accused, and hence all of them were equally engaged in transporting the huge-quantity of Charas. Challan in this case has already been submitted. The learned trial Court seized of the trial of this case is directed to proceed with the same on day to day basis so that the same stands concluded within a period of eight weeks.
4. As far as the other contentions are concerned, I am not convinced with the force of the same, inasmuch as such persons cannot be let loose on society, who spread and import the narcotics from the tribal area causing cancer of drug addiction. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is dismissed. N.H.Q./N-101/L Bail refused.