2009 PLP 916 (MLD)
ZAFAR alias ZAFRI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 916 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saif-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR alias ZAFRI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 916 (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 2009 PLP 916 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saif-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 916 (MLD) (ZAFAR alias ZAFRI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). 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(2)
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4
F.I.R. lacked the information as .to who, among the Police party, identified accused or whether or not accused and his co-accused were known to any one of them
Record was also silent in that context and informer was not examined
Case of accused, in circumstances, was of further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail. Ashfaq Ahmed Malik, DPG for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.
Petitioner seeks bail after arrest through this petition in case F.I.R. No.401, dated 28-11-2007 under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan.
2. According to prosecution story the police party received spy information that two unknown persons were keeping possession of liquor and when raid was conducted both of them succeeded in running away after leaving two cans which were containing 20 liters of liquor each. Their names were disclosed by the informer as Zafar petitioner and his co-accused Javed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The F.I.R. lacks the information as to who amongst the police party identified the petitioner or whether or not the petitioner and his co-accused were known to any one of them. The record is also silent in this context. The informer obviously was not examined. In view of the above facts this is found to be a case of further inquiry. This petition, therefore, is allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./Z-16/L Bail allowed.