2004 PLP 1777 (MLD)
KHALID YOUSIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1777 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHALID YOUSIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1777 (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 2004 PLP 1777 (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: 2004 PLP 1777 (MLD) (KHALID YOUSIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4
Art. 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, prima facie, was not applicable against accused whereas Art. 4 of said Order was bailable
Contention of accused that he had been implicated in the case due to mala fides of complainant and that he was first offender, seemed to be correct for the -reason being that raiding party consisted of as many as seven persons and it did not appeal to prudent mind that accused succeeded in escaping from the clutches of raiding party at the relevant time
Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his pre-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.18 of 2004 dated 1-2-2004 registered under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition Order IV of 1979 at Police Station Haram Gate, Multan.
2. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that Article 3 of the aforesaid Order prima facie is not applicable against the petitioner whereas Article 4 is bailable one; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time; that the petitioner is first offender and not a previous convict.
3. On the contrary the learned State counsel opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that the recovery of alcohol has been effected from the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of bail.
4. Heard both the parties, record perused.
5. Admittedly Article 3 of the aforesaid Order prima facie is not applicable against the petitioner whereas Article 4 is bailable one. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been implicated in this case due to mnla fide of the complainant and, is first offender, seems to be correct for the reason being that the raiding party was consisted of as many as seven persons and it does not appeal to a man of prudent mind that the petitioner succeeded in escaping from the clutches of raiding party at the relevant time.
6. In view of the above discussion and without going into the merits of the case the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19-5-2004 by this Court is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./K-57/L Pre-arrest bail confirmed.