1990 PLP 1045 (SCMR)
GHULAM SARWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1045 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1045 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1045 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1045 (SCMR) (GHULAM SARWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R.A. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate‑General and Abdul Samad Hashmi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1989.
- Additional Advocate‑General Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- 2. Notice was given to the State and Muhammad Akhtar, learned Additional Advocate‑General has appeared in response to the notice. We have ascertained from the learned Additional Advocate‑General whether there was any thing on the record to justify the refusal of the bail or to show that the petitioner was a previously convict offender or‑could be said in the opinion of the Court to be a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has gone through the record and pointed out that there is no such material except that the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of one kilogram of Heroin which itself shows that the offence is serious one.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(1), third proviso‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Benefit of third proviso to S. 497, Cr.P.C. can be denied when there is something in the offender like his previous conviction or his being a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal which can alone justify refusal of bail‑‑‑Such requirements neither having been made out nor referred to in the order refusing bail, petition was converted into appeal and accused was admitted to bail. Additional Advocate‑General Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was proceeded against on a Report dated 10‑1‑1988 (F.I.R. No. 11, dated 10‑1‑1988, Police Station Chung, Lahore) under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, on the alleged 1reeovery of one kilogram of heroin from him. As "no"' progress has been made in the trial of the case he claimed benefit of proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Judge in the High Court refused to admit him to bail by recording the following operative order:‑‑ "I have considered all these aspects of the case, in such like cases, I am not inclined to grant bail, therefore, this petition stands dismissed."
2. Notice was given to the State and Muhammad Akhtar, learned Additional Advocate‑General has appeared in response to the notice. We have ascertained from the learned Additional Advocate‑General whether there was any thing on the record to justify the refusal of the bail or to show that the petitioner was a previously convict offender or‑could be said in the opinion of the Court to be a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has gone through the record and pointed out that there is no such material except that the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of one kilogram of Heroin which itself shows that the offence is serious one. 3. 'The benefit of the proviso can be denied when there is something in the offender like his previous conviction or his being a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. That can alone justify the refusal of the bail. In the present case these requirements are not made out nor has the learned Judge refusing bail referred to any of these things. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into an appeal and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. N.H.Q./G‑264/5 Bail allowed.