1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AHMAD MUHAMMAD BIN HASHIM‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Allahdino G. Memon, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AHMAD MUHAMMAD BIN HASHIM‑‑Applicant 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 Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, 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 AHMAD MUHAMMAD BIN HASHIM‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 156 (1)(8)‑‑Bail‑‑Heroin recovered from accused was not weighed at the place of recovery and something had happened in between‑‑Case being one of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail. S.S. Jehangir for Applicant. Imam Ali G. Kazi, Dy. A. G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Imam Ali G. Kazi, Dy. A. G. for the State. The applicant is facing trial under section 156(1) sub‑clause (8) of the Customs Act, 1969 on the allegation that 35 grams of heroin powder was recovered from him at Terminal No. III Karachi Airport. The applicant had moved an application or bail before the learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation, Karachi but tire same was rejected vide order dated 28‑6‑1988. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is discrepancy regarding weight of heroin inasmuch as the F.I.R. shows that 35 grams of heroin was recovered from the applicant, while the charge sheet shows that 80 grams of heroin was recovered from the applicant and therefore, it appears that the heroin was not weighed at the Airport and the same has been foisted on the applicant and therefore, the case requires further enquiry. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that even if the discrepancy is there regarding the weight of the heroin the case will still fall within the Prohibitionary clause of section 497 subsection (1), Cr.P.C. and the applicant is not entitled to bail. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the F.I.R. challan and the order rejecting bail application. The discrepancy pointed out by the learned Advocate clearly shows that the heroin recovered from the applicant was not weighed at the Airport and something has happened in between, and therefore, it is a case of further enquiry. I, therefore, direct that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1 lac and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, the observation made by me in the above bail order is of tentative nature, and the learned Special Judge will decide this case uninfluenced by whatever has been said in the above order. If during the trial any tangible evidence is brought on record against the applicant, the learned trial Judge will be at liberty to cancel his bail. M.Y.H./M‑672/K Bail granted.