1997 PLP 1597 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1597 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Raja Muhammad Sabir, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1597 (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 1997 PLP 1597 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Raja Muhammad Sabir, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1597 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Uns for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.497 & 103‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4 ‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Rule of propriety, no doubt, demanded the association of public witnesses in the recovery proceedings, but the rule was not of universal application and there might be exceptional circumstances where it might not be possible to procure their attendance because of the general apathy of the public to appear as prosecution witnesses against accused charged with serious offences‑‑‑Accused was involved in more than twenty‑five cases of the similar nature‑‑‑Accused being not entitled to the concession of bail at such stage, the same was declined to him. Amjad Hameed Ghauri for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aslam Uns for Petitioner. Amjad Hameed Ghauri for the State. Muhammad Ashraf‑petitioner seeks bail in a case F.I.R. No. 170 dated 13‑5‑1996, under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1979, Police Station Dina, District Jhelum.
2. The relevant facts are that on the receipt of a secret information, S.I. Umar Hayat apprehended the petitioner on 13‑5‑1996 and recovered 500 grams of Chares carried by him in a shopping bag.
3. Bail is sought on the grounds that the case is based on false allegations and that except for police officers, there is no public witness to the alleged recovery and further that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, subsection (1), Cr.P.C.
4. No doubt, the rule of propriety demands that the public witnesses should be associated in the recovery proceedings, but it is not of universal application and there may be exceptional circumstances where it may not be possible to procure their attendance because of the general apathy of the public to appear as prosecution witnesses against accused charged with serious offences. We have been informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the petitioner is involved in more than twenty‑five cases of similar nature.
5. In the circumstances discussed above, we do not consider him entitled to the concession of bail at this stage and accordingly dismiss his application.
6. The trial Court is, however, directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same before this year goes out. N.H.Q./M‑197/L Bail refused.