1987 P Cr (PLP)
BACHAN SOAP‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Lehrasap Khan, J |
| Parties | BACHAN SOAP‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Lehrasap Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (BACHAN SOAP‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail‑‑Delay in commencement of trial‑‑Offence committed by accused falling within prohibitory clause‑‑Mere delay in commencement of trial, held, would be no ground to release accused‑‑Bail refused.‑ [Delay]. Raja Abdul Ghafoor for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner. Raja Abdul Ghafoor for the State. The petitioner Bachan Soap, who is involved in a case under Articles 3 and 4 of the prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No. 468, dated 10‑9‑1986, registered at Police Station Sadar Attock, has sought to be released on bail.
2. It has been alleged that as a result of raid conducted by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Attock, on 9‑9‑1986 at 11‑15 p.m. on a bus bearing registration No. PRT 598, coming from Peshawar, the petitioner was caught carrying a bag containing opium weighing 1050 grams. The petitioner was thus apprehended and case registered. Some quantity of opium out of the opium allegedly recovered from the petitioner was sent to the chemical examiner for analysis and the result has been received in positive.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was behind the bars since 9‑9‑1986, but the challan has not yet been submitted. Thus, the bail has been sought on the ground of delay in submission of challan and commencement of the trial.
4. The learned counsel for the State has conversely intimated that the challan in this case was submitted on 28‑9‑1986. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner in view of the weight of the opium allegedly recovered from him falls within the Prohibitory clause.
5. On the ground of mere delay in the commencement of trial, the petitioner cannot be released on bail, particularly when he is involved in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause. His application for bail is, therefore, dismissed. The learned trial Court is, however, directed to decide the case against the petitioner within three months. M.Y.H./B‑8/L Bail refused.