1988 P (PLP)
SHARAFAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | SHARAFAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P (PLP) (SHARAFAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Bilal Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused selling 20 grams of heroin to fake customer and throwing away 30 grams on seeing raiding party‑‑Accused named in F.I.R.‑‑Witnesses supporting prosecution in statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.‑‑Offence falling within prohibitory clause‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Riaz Ali Abbasi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for grant of bail to Sharafat Ali petitioner in a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd), Order, 1979, registered at P.S. Chung, Lahore vide F.I.R. No. 186/87, dated 14‑7‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was trading in heroin. He sold 20 grams of heroin to a Cake customer and on seeing the raiding party, he threw 30 grams of heroin on the ground and made his good his escape.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story of the prosecution that the petitioner made good his escape although one Excise Inspector and 5 others were present there, does not ring true; that there was ho occasion for the petitioner to throw 30 grams of heroin on the gro4nd; that no parade for the identification of the petitioner was held. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the name of the petitioner is very much mentioned in the F.I.R. and as such there was no necessity for identification parade; that in the F.I.R. it has been stated that the petitioner had sold 20 grams of heroin to a fake purchaser; that the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. have supported the allegations against the petitioner in statements recorded Under section 161, Cr.P.C. and that the bail cannot be granted on account of probability of the story of the prosecution being true and that the alleged offence falls within the! prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C: For what has been said above, without making expression of opinion, lest it may Prejudice the merits of the case. I feel that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. S. A . /S‑259 Bail refused.