1993M L D 86 (PLP)
UHAMMAD AYUB‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993M L D 86 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J |
| Parties | UHAMMAD AYUB‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993M L D 86 (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 1993M L D 86 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993M L D 86 (PLP) (UHAMMAD AYUB‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 18th August 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2 ‑‑-Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4‑- Bail, grant of‑‑‑Heroin allegedly recovered from the accused was contended to have been foisted upon him‑‑‑One of the Mashirs also appeared to be a stock witness of Excise Police‑‑‑Case against accused, thus, needed further inquiry‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Rashid A. Rizvi for Applicant. Shaukat H. Zubedi, A.A.G for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rashid A. Rizvi for Applicant. Shaukat H. Zubedi, A.A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 18th August 1991. This is an application for bail made on behalf of applicant Muhammad Ayub, a school teacher, who is detained in Crime NO‑10 of 1991, Excise Police Station (West), Karachi, under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The bail application made on his behalf was rejected earlier by learned Sessions judge (West), Karachi, vide order dated 14‑4‑1991.
2. I have heard Mr. Rashid A. Rizvi, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi, learned A.A.‑G. for State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of bail to applicant by stating that the circumstances attending to this case make out a case of further inquiry against him under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.p.C.,
3. The perusal of the record shows that the applicant who is a junior teacher has proceeded on long leave from 10‑2‑1991 to 9‑4‑1991 to reform Umra. He had valid passport, visa, ticket and foreign currency and was scheduled for sailing on 14‑2‑1991. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16‑2‑1991 he was apprehended by the Excise Staff and from his possession order of heroin weighing 400 grams was ‑recovered. Mr. Rashid A. Rizvi, learned counsel for applicant has however, contended that a person, who was due for sailing on 14‑2‑1991, could not be present at the place from where he was allegedly arrested. According to him the applicant was taken into custody on 14‑2‑1991 and thereafter the powder of heroin was foisted upon him. He has also endeavoured to show through documentary evidence that one of the Mashirs is stock witness of Excise Police and he has acted as Mashir previously also in two cases of similar nature.
4. The circumstances indicated above leads me to this conclusion that p the case against the applicant needs further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail. The bail is, therefore, allowed to 'applicant in the sum of Rs.25,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑1702/K Bail granted.