1989 PLP 4958 (MLD)
UMAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4958 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | UMAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4958 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4958 (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 4958 (MLD) (UMAR HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Ashraf Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Probibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3 & 4‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑Dangerous Drugs Act, (II of 1930), Ss.13 & 14‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from accused during a raid‑‑Offence was not committed at a public place‑‑Search was carried out without a search warrant‑‑No public witness was associated in raid proceedings‑‑Accused were behind the bars for more than one year‑‑Co‑accused already released on bail‑‑Bail granted to accused also in circumstances. Nisar Ahmad Waraich for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. 3143 B/1989 moved by Umar Hayat and Criminal Miscellaneous 3144 B/1989 moved by Asghar Ali sons of Manzoor Ahmad in a case under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and sections 13‑14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 as amended in 1983 vide F.I.R. No. 220/1988 Police Station Baragarh, District Sheikhupura.
2. The prosecution case is that Manzoor father of the petitioners disclosed to the raiding party that he alongwith his sons was engaged in the drug trafficking and led the raiding party to his Dera where his sons Asghar Ali, Umar Hayat petitioners and Hasan were present. From the Possession of Asghar Ali a 7 MM rifle with live bullets, two kilograms of opium, two kilograms of raw charas and two kilograms of charas were recovered, while from Umar Hayat .12 bore gun alongwith cartridges, one killogram of heroin, one kilogram of charas and two kilograms of opium were recovered on 2‑9‑1988.
3. Bail is urged on the grounds that the cases are based on false allegations and politically motivated. No witness from the public was made to attest the recovery memos. The alleged offence not having been committed at a public place was not cognizable and the police could not investigate it or carry out search without obtaining search warrants from the competent authority. Co -accused of the petitioners namely Hasan and Manzoor with similar allegations have already been admitted to bail, that the petitioners are behind the bars for more than one year without trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a number of precedents in support of the above contentions.
4. Keeping in view the delay that has occurred ill the conclusion of trial and other circumstances narrated above I admit both the petitioners to bail it, the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sheikhupura. SA./U‑37/L