1986 PLP 414(1) (MLD)
SHAHZADA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 414(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J |
| Parties | SHAHZADA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 414(1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 414(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 414(1) (MLD) (SHAHZADA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑Bail‑‑Accused a student of B.A. class‑‑No public witness associated in raid on house of accused‑‑Case, held, was of further enquiry‑‑Bail allowed. Hashmat Ali Rana for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑Bail‑‑Accused a student of B.A. class‑‑No public witness associated in raid on house of accused‑‑Case, held, was of further enquiry‑‑Bail allowed. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi for Petitioner. Hashmat Ali Rana for the State. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Shahzada Farrukh who is an accused of offence, under section 3/4 of Order 4 of 1979 for possessing one Kilogram of Heroine and also for vending two grams Heroine to Muhammad Rashid Police Constable on 2‑9‑1984.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. I have also perused the record.
3. In this case a raid party was organized by the Police but no public man of the locality was associated in the said raid on the house of the petitioner who is stated to be a student of B. A . class. In view of this I find that the case against the petitioner is that of further enquiry. The petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala. S.A. Bail allowed.