1989 PLP 3976 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3976 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zubair, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3976 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3976 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zubair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3976 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashiq Hussain Malik for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑‑‑5.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Raid was conducted by police officials under a background of enmity with accused‑‑No public witness attested the recovery‑‑Case was of further enquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Syed Ali Raza Rizvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 18th July, 1989. The petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No.14/9 dated 17‑1‑1989 registered at Police Station City Golra seeks to be released on bail.
2. The occurrence took place on 17‑1‑1989, at 4.15 P.M. According to the F.I.R. it was alleged that the petitioner after leaving a plastic bag containing 250 grams of heroin on the spot fled away, which was allegedly taken into possession by the polipe.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged plastic bag containing 250 grams of heroin was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner as his house was raided by Muhammad Khan S.I. alongwith some her police officials. 'there is a background of enmity between the petitioner and the local police.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars but no progress has been shown ` in the case as the trial Court has not even recorded evidence of a single witness.
5. Learned counsel also states that no public witness attested the recovery memo prepared with respect to the alleged recovery of heroin from the house of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the State has candidly admitted that the recovery memo does not bear the signature of any public witness and the trial has not commenced so far.
7. In view of above‑mentioned circumstances, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and I find that a case for bail is made out, hence he is admitted to bail in the .sum of Rs. 50,000/‑ (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Toba Tek Singh.