2002 PLP 3599 (YLR)
MOMAN HUSSAIN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3599 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | MOMAN HUSSAIN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3599 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3599 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3599 (YLR) (MOMAN HUSSAIN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 2002.
- 3. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General assisted by learned counsel for the State opposed the petition by submitting that it is heinous offence, that the petitioner alongwith three others were taking Charas for sale which shows that they indulged in the heinous crime, that there are chances of petitioner's absconcion and that no case for bail at this stage is made out.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substance, Act (XXV of 1997), S.9‑‑ Bail, grant of
Charas as alleged in F.I.R., was recovered from, accused and his co accused‑‑‑Charge had been framed and case had been fixed for recording of prosecution evidence‑‑‑Reasonable grounds exist to believe that accused had indulged in the business of drug paddling and trial having already commenced, no case for grant of bail was made out‑‑‑Bail application was dismissed. M. Qasim Khan, Asstt.A.‑G. and Tanveer Haider Buzdar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Qasim Khan, Asstt.A.‑G. and Tanveer Haider Buzdar for the State. Date of hearing: 30th January, 2002. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 80, dated 28‑3‑2001, under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 read with section 9‑B, of C.N.S.A. 1997, Police Station, Old Kotwali. Multan, registered on the statement of Mushtaq Ahmad, Inspector, CIA, Multan wherein the prosecution story is that on the fateful day and time on a general hold up Car No.8192/LOK was stopped at a point and on personal search of the petitioner and three others who were riding the said car, Charas weighing 500 grams was recovered from the petitioner. From the remaining three also charas weighing differently was recovered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that the recovery was effected by C.I.A., Staff which has no power to do that, that there is no previous history of the drug paddling in so far as petitioner is concerned, that the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 10 months and the trial is not in sight.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General assisted by learned counsel for the State opposed the petition by submitting that it is heinous offence, that the petitioner alongwith three others were taking Charas for sale which shows that they indulged in the heinous crime, that there are chances of petitioner's absconcion and that no case for bail at this stage is made out.
4. Heard.
5. On Court query learned counsel for the petitioner confirms that the charge has been framed and the case has been set down for recording of prosecution evidence ford 13‑2‑2002. We would not like to comment on the merits of the prosecution case left it may prejudice the case of either side surface it to say since the Charas as alleged in the F.I.R. was recovered from the petitioner and three others, there are reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner indulged in the business of drug paddling and the trial has already commenced. In the afore referred circumstances no case for bail is made out: Dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1463/L Bail refused.