2008 PLP 927 (MLD)
MURSLEEN alias KAKA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 927 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MURSLEEN alias KAKA — 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 927 (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 927 (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 927 (MLD) (MURSLEEN alias KAKA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saghir Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4
Report of Chemical Examiner regarding the material recovered from the possession of accused, had not been received by the prosecution
Offences allegedly committed by accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause
Investigating Officer present in court had admitted that accused was behind the bars since 21-10-2006
Accused was no more required for the investigation
No useful purpose would be served by detaining accused any further
Judgment & Decree
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.
Through this criminal miscellaneous petition Mursleen alias Kaka has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 371, dated 21-10-2006 under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered with Police Station Burweala District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution story is that the petitioner in the company of his co-accused was found manufacturing indigenous liquor. He was apprehended on the spot and distilled liquor and articles used during the process of manufacturing liquor were recovered from him.
3. In support of this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause; that up till now the report of Chemical Examiner regarding the recovered material is awaited. He adds that. petitioner is behind the bars since 21-10-2006 and it is settled law that 'bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment. 3A. The learned DPG has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot while manufacturing the liquor.
4. After hearing both the sides it has been observed that admittedly the report of Chemical Examiner regarding the material recovered from the possession of the petitioner, has not yet been received by the prosecution. It has been further observed that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Investigating Officer present in Court has candidly admitted that the petitioner was not previously involved in such like activities. The petitioner is 'behind the bars since 21-10-2006. He is no more required for the investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him any further. Consequently by relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-37/L Bail granted.