1987 PLP 3023 (MLD)
AZIZ KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3023 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, |
| Parties | AZIZ KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3023 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 3023 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3023 (MLD) (AZIZ KHAN — 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), Ss. 2(s), 156(1)(8) & 159--Bail, grant of--Offence whether falling under Customs Act or Hadood Ordinance--Question which of the two laws would be applicable to offence disclosed in F.I.R. would bring the case under category of further inquiry--Bail allowed in circumstances. Khawaja Naweed Ahmad for applicant. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Special Bail Application No. 15 of 1987, decided on 14th April, 1987.
S. 497--Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s), 156(1)(8) & 159--Bail, grant of--Offence whether falling under Customs Act or Hadood Ordinance--Question which of the two laws would be applicable to offence disclosed in F.I.R. would bring the case under category of further inquiry--Bail allowed in circumstances. Khawaja Naweed Ahmad for applicant. Nemo for the State. The applicant who has been arrested for the alleged violation of Section 2 (s) read with section 156(1) (8) and section 159 of the Customs Act, has applied for bail. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the offence as disclosed in the F.I.R. does not fall under any of the provisions mentioned above. It is contended that the allegation in the F.I.R. at best constituted an offence under Hadood Ordinance for which Coast Guards Authorities are neither competent to investigate nor try the accused /appellant. Reliance in this connection is placed by the learned counsel on several unreported cases decided by the Special Appellate Court. These are: (1) 1 SpI. Cr. Bail Application No. 51/85 (Theresia Avilegation v. The State, (2) SpI Cr. Bail Appl. No. 29 of 1985 (Khuda Bux v. The State), (3) SpI. Cr. Bail Application No. 42/85 (Shamendaroz v. The State), (4) Spl. Cr. Bail Appln. No. 34 of 1983 (Taus Khan and another v. The State. In all the above-noted cases a similar contention was raised on behalf of the applicants for grant of bail and it was found by the learned Judge that in view of the doubtful position as to swhich of the two laws will be applicable to the offence disclosed in the F.I.R. the case would fall under the category of further enquiry and as such bail was granted in all those cases. Nothing has been placed before me on behalf of the State either to distinguish those cases or to persuade me to take a contrary view. I accordingly allow the application. The applicant is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties and P.B. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S . A . / A-193/ K Bail allowed.