1989 PLP 202 (SCMR)
Mst. ZAR BANO Petitioner Versus THE STATE- -Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 202 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZAR BANO Petitioner Versus THE STATE- -Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 202 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 202 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 202 (SCMR) (Mst. ZAR BANO Petitioner Versus THE STATE- -Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 7th December, 1988.
- Rustam J.E. Kaikobad, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for.Petitioner.
- Murtaza Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Sind High Court; Hyderabad, dated 26-7-1987 in Cr. Bail Application No. 316 of 1987). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ,
S. 497--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 4 & 16- Bail, grant of--Accused a woman having a suckling child and her detention in jail detrimental to health of child--Accused found in possession of contraband article in her house which was not a public place--Offence committed by her bail able by virtue of Art. 16 of Prohibition Order, 1979--Valid case made out for grant of bail to accused--Interim bail already granted to accused confirmed in circumstances. Khaitijan v. State 1987 P Cr. L J 1359; Mukhtiar Hussain v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 1787; Mst. Waheedan v. State 1975 P Cr. L J 130; Rehmatullah,v. State 1987 P Cr. L J 1409 and Hayat v. State 1985 P Cr. L J 1353 rel. Rustam J.E. Kaikobad, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for.Petitioner. Murtaza Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rustam J.E. Kaikobad, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for.Petitioner. Murtaza Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1988. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the Order of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 26‑7‑1987 refusing to grant petitioner's request for bail pending her trial in a case under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order. 1979, for being in possession of about 150 grams of heroin powder. Petitioner is a woman with a suckling child, and it is firstly submitted that her retention in jail is detrimental to the health of the child who has fallen ill. It is further submitted that since; according to the prosecution case itself, petitioner was found in possession of the contraband article in her house, which cannot be said to be a public place, the offence, if any, committed by the petitioner is bail able by virtue of Article 16 of the Prohibition Order 1979. These points were also pressed into service when the case came up for hearing before one of us (Mr. Justice Zaffar Hussain Murza, J.) on 4‑8‑1987 and in support of the first plea reliance was placed on the cases of Khaitijan v. State (1987 P Cr. L J 1359), Mukhtiar Hussain v. State (1983 P Cr. L J 1787) and Mst. Waheedan v. State (1975 P Cr. L J 130). On the second point reliance was placed on the cases of Rehmatullah v. State (1987 P Cr. L J 14(19) and Hayat v. State (1985 P Cr. L J 1353). Since the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were supported by the aforesaid reported decisions petitioner was granted interim bail on 4‑8‑1987 and today also the aforesaid pleas have been urged in support of this petition for leave to appeal. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record before us, we find that a valid case in law has been made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and allow C it and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and also the one dated 14‑6‑1987 passed by the Sessions Judge refusing to grant appellant's request for bail. The bail granted to the appellant by the order of this Court dated 4‑8‑1987 is confirmed. M.Y.H./Z‑40/S Bail confirmed.