1995 P Cr (PLP)
ZIA MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZIA MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (ZIA MUHAMMAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sahibzada Masoodul Hassan Khan Sabri Afghani for Petitioner. Rao Khalil Ahmad Khan for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4
One kilogram of heroin allegedly recovered from the accused could not be easily planted by the police in the absence of some exceptional enmity between them which was not even suggested by the record
Case against accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 10th October, 1994. The petitioner, who is involved in a case under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No.359/94, dated 10-5-1994 registered at Police Station, Nawankot, Lahore seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner alongwith co-accused was found in unlawful possession of heroin weighing one kilogram from the plastic bags.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a driver and has been roped in falsely in this case due to enmity with the local police. Placing reliance on F.I.R. No.361/94, dated 10-5-1994 at Police Station Nawankot submitted that the police has planted the alleged one kilogram to heroin on the petitioner, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer submitted that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause and the recovery was effected in accordance with law. The contention of the learned counsel that he has been involved on account of rift between the petitioner and the police-officials, is not well-founded.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, one kilogram of heroin was recovered from the petitioner which cannot be easily planted by the police unless there is exceptional enmity between the police and the petitioner. There is no material on the record to justify this assertion of the petitioner that the police is inimical; hence no a ground is made out for the grant of bail in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause as a huge quantity of heroin was recovered from the petitioner, the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./Z-148/1 Bail refused.