YLR 2001

2001 PLP 2324 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1596-B of 2001, decided on 24th July, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Raja Muhammad Sabir and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 PLP 2324 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Raja Muhammad Sabir and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2324 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2324 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Sabir and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2324 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Ramzan Khalid Joiya for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 24th July, 2001.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.314

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)

Bail, grant of

Accused was prosecution witness in a case of illegal gratification earlier filed by a woman against Police Officer concerned and the accused had been implicated in the present case falsely on account of that ground

Accused had no criminal history indicating his involvement in any narcotics case

Quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from the accused was only 514 grams and the accused was in jail for more than seven months

Plea of the accused that he had been falsely implicated in view of personal grudge by the Police Officer concerned, was not without force and the case against him was of further enquiry-- Accused was entitled to grant of bail in circumstances. Rao Muhammad Iqbal for the State.

Judgment & Decree

RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.-- Muhammad Yousaf petitioner seeks post -arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.4 of 2001, dated 21-1-2001 registered under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station, Saddar Burewala.

2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner is that on receiving a secret information that the petitioner was selling heroin, a raid was conducted by Shahid Anwar, A.S.I. The petitioner tried to run away but was apprehended by the raiding party and on his personal search, heroin weighing 514 gins. and sale proceeds of Rs.240 were recovered from him. Out of the heroin, recovered from the petitioner, 1 gm. was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. ,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Mst. Halima Bibi wife of Allah Yar complained against Muhammad Hanif, S.H.O. of Police Station Burewala to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, District Vehari on 4-1-2001 to the effect that she had been wrongfully confined for four days and released after receiving Rs.30,000 as illegal gratification by the said S.H.O.; that Muhammad Yousuf petitioner is a prosecution witness of said illegal gratification, received by the S.H.O.; that a case was registered against Muhammad Hanif, S.H.O. on the basis of the aforesaid complaint vide F.I.R. No.24 of 2001 on 17-5-2001 under section 161, P.P.C. read with sections 5/2/47 of P.C.A. with Anti Corruption Establishment, Vehari; that on account of this grudge, the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case falsely by planting recovery of 514 grams of heroin on him; that the petitioner is in jail for more than seven months but the trial has not commenced so far; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the petitioner has never been involved previously in any case of this nature.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is evident from the copy of the F. I. R. No. 24 of 2001, mentioned above, that the petitioner has been nominated as P.W. therein. The application on the basis of which said F.I.R. was registered was moved on 4-1-2001, whereas, the instant case has been registered on 21-1-2001 i.e. just after seventeen days of the said application. The petitioner has no criminal history indicating his involvement in any narcotics case. The quantity of heroin, allegedly recovered from the petitioner is only 514 grams. He is in jail for more than seven months. The plea of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in view of personal grudge of the S.H.O. of the same police station is not without force and makes it a case of further enquiry.

6. For the reasons stated above, we allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-780/L Bail granted.