2008 PLP 417 (MLD)
ZAMAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 417 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAMAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 417 (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 2008 PLP 417 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 417 (MLD) (ZAMAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehr Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Offences allegedly committed by accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was behind the bars since 27-8-2006 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him further behind the bars
Bail could not be withheld as a matter of punishment
Judgment & Decree
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.
Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.307 of 2006, dated 27-8-2006, under Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station Muzafar Abad, District Multan.
2. According to the prosecution on the information delivered by Muhammad Irfan who was arrested in another case a raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner and he was found busy in preparing liquor in the local liquor factory. Two plastic drums which were half filled with raw liquor were recovered from said house. Certain utensils of the factory were also recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while raiding the house of the petitioner, the police violated the relevant provision of Article 4(1)(L) of the Police Order, 2002, according to which, such like raids could be conducted at a public place only, while in this case the police illegally entered into the house of the petitioner. He was further contended that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail application.
5. At the very out set, it has been noticed that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The petitioner is behind the bars since 27-8-2006 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. It is settled law that the bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment.
6. For all the reasons stated above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./Z-32/L Bail granted.