1995 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL RASHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL RASHID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Suleman Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4‑‑ Bail‑‑‑Prosecution witnesses were not shown to have any enmity with the accused for his false implication‑‑‑Offence with which the accused was charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Courts being an important limb of the State have to put a check while granting bail to criminals in narcotics case as in that event it would amount to giving them premium on committing such offences‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Sabir Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4‑‑ Bail‑‑‑Prosecution witnesses were not shown to have any enmity with the accused for his false implication‑‑‑Offence with which the accused was charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Courts being an important limb of the State have to put a check while granting bail to criminals in narcotics case as in that event it would amount to giving them premium on committing such offences‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Suleman Qureshi for Petitioner. Sabir Shad for the State. The petitioner being accused in case F.I.R. No.510 of 1994 under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered with Police Station Naulakha, District Lahore has filed this petition for post‑arrest bail on the ground that the petitioner has been involved in the case due to enmity; that the case is highly doubtful and as there is no public eye‑witness of the alleged occurrence in spite of the fact that the place of alleged occurrence is a thickly populated place. It was next contended that the petitioner is no more required by the police as nothing is to be recovered from him.
2. Learned counsel for the State has hotly opposed the petition. He submitted that 30 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner and he was caught red‑handed at the spot, therefore, being accused of heinous offence is not entitled to the concession of bail.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police file. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable. as alleged, to point out any enmity with the petitioner for his false implication. The offence with which the petitioner stands charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further in case of narcotics, the Courts being an important limb of the State has to put a check while granting the bail to such criminals as in that event it would amount to giving them premium of committing offence. I am in the particular facts and circumstances not minded to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑797/L Bail refused.