2007 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 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 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi assisted by Mehr Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement. of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Accused though was apprehended in a well-populated area, but none from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings and provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. we're violated with impunity
Offence against accused did not attract the prohibitory provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Notice for today.
2. The latter accepts notice on behalf of the State. Let it be heard and decided today.
3. Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.353 of 2005, registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, Multan on 14-11-2005 for an offence under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
4. The relevant facts per F.I.R. are; that on a tip off the petitioner was apprehended by Mukhtar Hussain; S.-I. and 25 bottles of local made liquor were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been noticed that though the petitioner was apprehended in a well-populated area yet none from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings and the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. were violated with impunity. The offences do not attract the prohibitory provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-538/L Bail granted.