2008 PLP 1623 (YLR)
LIAQAT alias LUCKY — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1623 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman, J |
| Parties | LIAQAT alias LUCKY — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1623 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1623 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1623 (YLR) (LIAQAT alias LUCKY — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Ahmad Buzdar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Offence with which accused was charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Grant of bail, in such like cases, was a rule and its refusal was an exception
No person from the locality having been associated with the raid, provisions of S.103, Cr. P. C. were violated
Case of accused being of further inquiry, he was allowed bail. Tariq Bashir and others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 and Muhammad Iqbal v. The State SLR (sic) (Multan) 628 rel. Abdul Latif Hinjra, DPG. Munir A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 847 dated 26-10-2006 registered under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station New Multan.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that 64 bottles of liquor were recovered from the motor bike of the petitioner.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Article 3 is not attracted to the case of the petitioner as there is no allegation against the petitioner of selling the illicit liquor; that Article 4 is bailable; that no person from the locality had been associated with the raid, as such mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. had been violated; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 5-1/2 months; that the offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause and that the petitioner has been implicated in this case by the police officials due to ulterior motives and with mala fide intentions.
4. On the other hand, the bail has been opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause. In such-like cases grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Tariq Bashir and others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). Moreover, no person from the locality has been associated with the raid, therefore, provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. were violated. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Muhammad Iqbal v. The State SLR (sic) (Multan) 628).
7. In view of the above circumstances and keeping in view the dictum laid down in the above-referred authorities, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry and therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./L-4/L Bail granted.