1999 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. NASREEN BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. NASREEN BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 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: 1999 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. NASREEN BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riaz Hussain Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Art.3/4-- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9-A
Bail, grant of-- Accused though was named in F.I.R., but was not arrested at-the spot
No evidence was available on record indicating that accused was owner of heroin recovered
Case against accused was of further inquiry to determine whether heroin so recovered belonged to accused or to somebody else
Judgment & Decree
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, C.J.
Mst. Nasreen Bibi petitioner seeks bail in a case registered at District Sheikhupura for offences under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) read with section 9-A, Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 vide F.I.R. No.737, dated 27-9-1997. Allegation against the petitioner is that first informant received secret information on 27-4-1997 that petitioner involved in the sale of narcotics in her house. In pursuance of the said information a raiding party was constituted. Before raiding party could reach the house of the petitioner, she while throwing the plastic bag containing 550 grams heroine managed to escape from the other door of the house.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been more than 8 months yet the trial has not commenced. States that there is no evidence which could connect the petitioner with the recovery of alleged heroin. It is also asserted that petitioner is in jail with a suckling baby. Contentions were opposed.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file. Though petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but was not arrested at the spot. There is no evidence so far available on the file indicates that the petitioner was owner 'of the heroin recovered. According to the police official present with record, her husband is also involved in similar cases. In such circumstances, it becomes a case of further inquiry to determine whether the heroin so recovered belongs to the petitioner or somebody else. Therefore, application is accepted. The petitioner is allowed bail provided she furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./N-128/L Bail allowed.