1989 PLP 4785 (MLD)
SABIR ALI alias MANNA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4785 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | SABIR ALI alias MANNA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4785 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4785 (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 4785 (MLD) (SABIR ALI alias MANNA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aish Bahadur Rana for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Fifteen grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from accused in pursuance of a raid‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner declared it to be an intoxicant‑‑Contents not determined to be heroin‑‑Case was of further inquiry‑ Bail granted in circumstances. Ch. Imtiaz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Aish Bahadur Rana for Petitioner. Ch. Imtiaz for the State. Sabir Ali alias Mana petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him for an offence under Article 3/4 Prohibition of Hadd Order, 1979, with Police Station Kahna Lahore, vide F.I.R. dated 21‑3‑1989. The facts in brief are that the first informant Muhammad Sohail, Excise Inspector, received information that two persons were indulging in the sale of heroin; if raided could be arrested. In pursuance of the secret information, a raiding‑party was constituted which apprehended the petitioner. From his personal search 15 grams of heroin was recovered. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is absolutely false. Submits that only 15 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Contends that the report of the Chemical Examiner does not support the allegation that heroin was recovered from his possession. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, the contents which were sent for analysis were intoxicant. It is not clear whether the contents were heroin or any other substance which was intoxicant. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry which entities him to the concession of bail. The petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner//Duty Magistrate concerned. SA./S‑538/L Bail allowed.