2006 PLP 576 (YLR)
ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 576 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 576 (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 2006 PLP 576 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 576 (YLR) (ABDUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Amir Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
No evidence of sale of Charas had been brought on record
Quantity of Charas allegedly recovered did not put case of accused in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Accused was a previous non-convict
Investigation was complete and Malian had been submitted in the Court
No useful purpose would be served to put accused behind the bars indefinitely
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Zafar Iqbal v. The State PCr.LJ 678, and Zakir Ali v. The 2004 PCr.LJ 1670 ref. Wajid Nawaz Bhatti for the State. Muhammad Akram, S. -I.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.132, dated 28-4-2005 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at P.S. Sarai Sadhu District Khanewal.
2. Briefly stated that facts as contained in the F.I.R. are that Abdul Majeed, A.S.-I. P.S. Sarai Sidhu along with other police officials for the purpose of patrolling were present at the Adda Chupar Natta where he received the spy information that a person was selling Charas while riding upon a motorcycle near Bridge Canal Shujjabad Link. Upon the information the raid was conducted and the petitioner was arrested along with his motorcycle at the Bridge Canal Shujjabad link and upon his personal search 255 grams Charas was recovered from his possession and sale price of Rs.500 was recovered from him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence of sale of Charas; that quantum of alleged recovery does not put the case of the petitioner in the prohibitory clause and in this behalf he has relied upon Zafar Iqbal v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 678) and that the petitioner is a previous non-convict and has no record and in this behalf he has relied upon Zakir Ali v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1670).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. he has been found guilty during investigation.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. No evidence of sale of Charas has been brought on record. Qauntum of alleged recovery of Charas does not put the case of the petitioner in the prohibitory clause. The petitioner is a previous non-convict. The petitioner was arrested on 28-4-2005. Investigation is complete and challan has been submitted in the Court. No useful purpose will be served to put the petitioner behind the bars, indefinitely in this view of the matter, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-1/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.