1989 PLP 4803 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4803 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4803 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4803 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4803 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zahid Abbasi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.497‑-West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑Bail, grant of‑ House of accused was searched in his absence‑‑ Kalashinkov was recovered from the house of accused‑‑Case of further inquiry to find out whether accused could be saddled with the responsibility‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Shafiq‑uz‑Zaman for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑-West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑Bail, grant of‑ House of accused was searched in his absence‑‑ Kalashinkov was recovered from the house of accused‑‑Case of further inquiry to find out whether accused could be saddled with the responsibility‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Zahid Abbasi for Petitioner. Shafiq‑uz‑Zaman for the State. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989. Muhammad Shafique alias Momni, petitioner, seeks bail in case registered against him under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance 1965 read with section 512 Cr.P.C. with Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala, vide F.I.R. dated 25‑7‑1985. The allegation against the petitioner is that on information received, the police raided the house of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of the raid, therefore, he slipped away from his house. In his absence, the house was searched and from one room one kalashinkov with two magazines and 70 bullets were recovered. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no case against the petitioner is made out. Submits that the petitioner was not even present when the house was searched. Contends that the petitioner is employed m Karachi, and, therefore, was living with his family there. Submits that the recovery of kalashinkov, even if accepted, cannot connect the petitioner with the commission of any offence. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the 'record. Admittedly, the house of the petitioner was searched in his absence. In such circumstances, it will be a case of further inquiry whether the petitioner can be saddled with the responsibility of kalashinkov being recovered from his house. The contention of the learned counsel that during the days of occurrence and thereafter he used to live in Karachi, would be gone into at the time of recording of evidence. Prima facie: I feel it is a case of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. S.A./M‑1626/L Bail allowed.