2000 PLP 483 (MLD)
LIAQUAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 483 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan,. C.J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J |
| Parties | LIAQUAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 483 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 483 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan,. C.J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 483 (MLD) (LIAQUAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9‑C‑‑ Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑‑Bail‑‑ Huge quantity of heroin weighing one kilogram and 200 grams was recovered from the possession of accused‑‑‑No mala fides were shown to, exist on the part of prosecution against the accused‑‑‑Provisions of 5.103, Cr.P.C. having been specifically excluded by S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the same were not attracted in the case‑‑‑Reasonable grounds existed for believing the involvement of accused in the alleged offence which fell within the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑ Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Salah‑ud‑Din Zafar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner seeks the grant of bail in case F.I.R. No. 181 of 1998, dated 22‑5‑1998 under section 9‑C of the Control ‑of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to the prosecution case, a police party, on a spy information, apprehended the petitioner and heroin weighing one Kilogram and 200 grams was recovered from the shopping bag which the petitioner was carrying.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that only 1 gram heroin was set to the Chemical Examiner. It was further submitted that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. had been violated inasmuch as no respectable of the locality was associated to witness the alleged recovery. It was further argued that only the Anti‑Narcotics Force constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could arrest, investigate and prosecute the petitioner. The contentions were opposed by the learned State Counsel.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Huge quantity of heroin was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. No mala fide was shown to exist. The provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. were not, prima facie, attracted inasmuch as the application thereof was specifically excluded by virtue section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Reasonable grounds exist for the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence falling within the prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail application fails and is dismissed. N.H.Q./L‑52/L Bail declined.