1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Fatmi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4--Bail, grant of--Petitioner behind the bars for last about one year--Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Abdul Moed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4--Bail, grant of--Petitioner behind the bars for last about one year--Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Munir Fatmi for Petitioner. Abdul Moed for the State. The petitioner was hauled up on 1-7-1986 and heroin weighing 170 grams was recovered from his possession. He was accordingly challaned under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (P.O. No. 4) of 1979 and section 14 of Dangerous Drugs Ordinance of 1930. 2. I had earlier declined bail to the petitioner vide order dated 22-11-1986 in Crl. Misc. No. 906-B/86. Instant petition has been moved on the ground that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and, therefore, he is entitled to the grant of bail. 3. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the period of detention of the petitioner if computed by subtracting the period he remained on interim bail does come to near about one year. In the circumstances I feel inclined to allow bail to the petitioner, who shall be released on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S. G. D./M-431/L Bail allowed.