1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Waheed Babar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Thirty‑five grams of heroin recovered from accused‑‑No public witness joined in raid or recovery proceedings‑‑Accused not a previous convict‑ Bail granted in circumstances. S. Zulfiqar Haider for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Thirty‑five grams of heroin recovered from accused‑‑No public witness joined in raid or recovery proceedings‑‑Accused not a previous convict‑ Bail granted in circumstances. A. Waheed Babar for Petitioner. S. Zulfiqar Haider for the State. Muhammad Aslam petitioner is charged for an offence under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (EOH) Order, 1979 on the allegation that on 28‑5‑1988 he was found selling heroin and from his personal search 35 grams of heroin was recovered.
2. It is contended that the case is based on false allegations and that though the alleged recovery had been effected from a busy public thoroughfare but no witness from the public was made to attest the recovery or to join the raiding party. It is further stated that his person is no loner required because the challan has been submitted in Court.
3. From the perusal of the F.I.R. it does not appear that any public witness was joined either m the raid or recovery. The petitioner is said to be not a previous convict. Accordingly, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court or Duty Magistrate. Record be sent back to the trial Court. S.A./M‑1005/L Bail granted.