2017 PLP 303 (YLR)
JAN ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 303 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | JAN ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 303 (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 2017 PLP 303 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 303 (YLR) (JAN ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant
Punishment provided in Arts.3 & 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Where an offence, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., the grant of bail was a rule; and refusal was an exception
No special circumstance had been pointed out, which could persuade the court to refuse concession of bail to accused
Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Malik Sherbaz, Dy. A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner/accused was booked for the above offences vide FIR No.09/2016 registered under section 3/4 of Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Singual District Ghizer.
2. The concession of bail was not extended to him by the trial Court vide judgment/order dated 29-03-2016, hence he has come to this court for the same relief. Mr. Muhammad Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that Section 3 of the Ordinance entails punishment of only five years, while the punishment provided under section 4 of the Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance-1979 is only 2 years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/accused is first offender and he is in judicial lock up after completion of investigation. Per learned counsel his detention in prison will not serve any useful purpose.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G. submitted at bar that no earthly reasons have been shown for false implication of the petitioner/accused and a huge quantity of Charas has been recovered from his possession, which disentitles him for concession of bail.
5. It is admitted fact that the case was registered by the local police under sections 3/4 of Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance-1979 and the punishment provided in the imposed section does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Now all most all, it is admitted legal proposition that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. No any special exception has been pointed out by the learned Dy.A.G., which may persuade my mind to refuse the concession of bail to the petitioner/accused. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.500,000 (Rupees five lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. HBT/26/GB Bail granted.