P Cr (PLP)
MEHBOOB ALAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEHBOOB ALAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P Cr (PLP)?
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: P Cr (PLP) (MEHBOOB ALAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sarfraz Khan Saifi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4-- Bail, grant of
Accused was admitted to bail which was cancelled for his non appearance in Court on one date
Notices to sureties for forfeiture of surety bonds had been issued
Case was at argument stage after recording prosecution evidence
Bail was granted in order to enable the accused to arrange his defence.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4-- Bail, grant of
Accused was admitted to bail which was cancelled for his non appearance in Court on one date
Notices to sureties for forfeiture of surety bonds had been issued
Case was at argument stage after recording prosecution evidence
Bail was granted in order to enable the accused to arrange his defence. Sarfraz Khan Saifi for Petitioner. Mian M. Bashir for the State. The petitioner was arrested on 13-8-1989 in a case under Article Prohibition Order (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. It is alleged that 53 grams of heroin were recovered from his possession. He was admitted to bail and as per his counsel's statement had been appearing before the trial Court on 44 dates of hearing but failed to appear on 29-9-1989 through inadvertence as a result of which his non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued and he was arrested on 23-1-1989.
2. Show-cause notices were also issued to his sureties to explain why the bail amount may not be recovered from them. It is contended that his absence was not wilful but was due to misunderstanding. He was told that he would A receive notice/summons from the Court but without receipt of any intimation his non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued. The petitioner is under arrest since 23-1-1989. The prosecution evidence has been recorded and the case is at arguments stage.
3. In order to enable the petitioner to make necessary arrangements for his defence, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Ferozwala. This order shall not affect the proceedings initiated by the learned trial Court against the sureties and the petitioner in connection with the forfeiture of bail bonds and the recovery of bail bonds from them. S.A./M-2018/L Bail allowed.