2007 PLP 1711 (YLR)
MUSHTAQ ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1711 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Javed Sarfraz, J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1711 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1711 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Javed Sarfraz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1711 (YLR) (MUSHTAQ ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chchan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 103
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Counsel for accused had contended that provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been violated as no private witness had been associated despite recovery was allegedly made at busy place
Contention was repelled as provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. were not applicable in such-like cases
Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 entailed a maximum sentence of two years, which was thus a bailable offence, while Art.3 of said Order did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Investigation in the case was complete and accused was no more required by the police for any purpose
Sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, but report having not been received back, it could not be said as to whether material recovered from accused was liquor or not
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Miss Nasim Noor for the State with Nasir Mehmood., A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
SH. JAVED SARFRAZ, J.--Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.680 of 2006, dated 7-9-2006 for offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station Jhang Bazar, District Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the recovery was allegedly made at busy place and no private witness had been associated hence the same was in violation of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C., that the samples were sent to Chemical Examiner but the report had not beep. received; that no allegation of selling "Liquor" was levelled against the petitioner hence the case of the petitioner fell under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 which was punishable with an imprisonment of two years hence bailable; that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor is required by the police for investigation therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contends that the petitioner had been nominated in the F.I.R. and had been apprehended at the spot; that 16 kuppies of liquor having been recovered from the petitioner the offence fell under Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. has no substance, the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. are not applicable in such-like cases, Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 entails a maximum sentence of two years is a bailable offence while Article 3 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required by the police for any purpose. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis however, that report has not been received back and it cannot be said at this stage as to whether the material recovered from the petitioner was liquor or not.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his finishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. The learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on the evidence so produced, without being prejudiced by the above observations which are only tentative in nature. H.B.T./M-154/L Bail granted.