MLD 1992

1992 PLP 1857 (MLD)

Syed JAVED AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Crl. Misc. No.1198‑B of 1992, decided on 8th April, 1992.
Honorable Judges
Rashid Aziz Khan, .l
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP 1857 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Rashid Aziz Khan, .l
Parties Syed JAVED AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners 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 1992 PLP 1857 (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 1992 PLP 1857 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, .l.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1857 (MLD) (Syed JAVED AHMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners 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

  • Khan Yunus Khan for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), S.23/27‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail‑‑‑Contention was that the medicines taken in possession by Drug Inspector were not drugs as the same were used solely for treatment of birds and Government had permitted everyone to make the same in order to fight the epidemic in the birds‑‑‑Prosecution after getting instructions did not oppose the pre‑arrest bail applications‑‑‑Accused were admitted to pre‑arrest bail in circumstances. Iftikhar Sipra for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Khan Yunus Khan for Petitioners. Iftikhar Sipra for the State. Petitioners seek pre‑arrest ad interim bail in a case registered with Police Station Mozang, Lahore, for an offence under section 23/27 of Drugs Act, 1976. Allegation against the petitioners was that some drugs were taken into possession by Drug Inspector. On demand neither the petitioners produced warranty nor licence permitting them to manufacture the same. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the medicines‑taken in possession are not drugs. Submits that medicines are used solely for the treatment of birds and the Government is permitting everyone to make the same in order to fight the epidemic in the birds.

2. I have heard the learned counsel. Petitioners arc allowed ad interim pre‑arrest bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore, till 8‑4‑1992, on which date the petitioners shall appear in person. The record of the case shall also be made available. Learned counsel for the State after instructions does not oppose the application for pre‑arrest bail. In these circumstances and for the reasons given earlier in this Court's order, dated 1‑4‑1992, the pre‑arrest bail is confirmed. N.H.Q./J‑15/L Pre‑arrest bail confirmed.