1985 P Cr (PLP)
BABAR ISLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | BABAR ISLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (BABAR ISLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Mahmood Awan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner allegedly found in possession of heroin weighing 850 grams, in custody for over 3 months‑‑Petitioner not a previous convict nor required any more for investigation‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Iqbal Mahmood Awan for Petitioner. Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1984. This is an application for bail on behalf of Babar Islam petitioner in a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at P.S. Misri Shah, vide F.I.R. No.260/203, dated 24‑7‑1984.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of 850 grams of Heroin on 24‑7‑1984.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are not reasonable grounds to believe that no petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged, that the prosecution intends to examine police officials only, that no public man was joined in the raid and that the petitioner is no, more required for investigation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the plea (sic) of the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner was arrested on 24‑7‑1984, that he is no more required for investigation and that he is not a previous convict. Without making expression of opinion on merits, A lest it may prejudice the trial of the petitioner/ accused, I feel inclined to admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore. S. G. D. Bail allowed.