2000 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM RIAZ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RIAZ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM RIAZ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order .(4 of 1979), Art.3/4‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Bail was sought by accused on ground that jail staff demanded illegal gratification from accused and on his refusal he was tortured and mala fidely involved in case‑‑‑Accused who was, in custody in jail staff having levelled allegations of torture and mala fides on complainant, case of further inquiry had been made out‑‑‑Accused was granted bail. Shahid Amin for the State. ORDER The petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No.332, dated 26‑9‑1997 for offences under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station City Mianwali for the alleged recovery of 25 grams of heroin and 4 grams of Charas from his Chappal at the main gate of the jail.
2. Earlier the bail was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali on 5‑5‑1998.
3. The bail is pressed on the grounds that the jail staff demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner which was not paid and thereafter he was tortured and with a view to make out some defence the petitioner was involved in the instant case and that there was no occasion to procure intoxicant from am. quarter and that the present case is better example of misuse of powers by the State functionaries. It is further submitted that the Control o: Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has since been promulgated but even then case against the petitioner has been registered under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 with mala fide intention because the sentence provided under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provides sentence only two years and the offence would be bailable one and that section 9 (ibid) was not inserted with mala fide intention.
4. The bail is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and that recovery has been effected from his Chappal. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H. B. T./G‑31/L Bail granted.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No.332, dated 26‑9‑1997 for offences under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station City Mianwali for the alleged recovery of 25 grams of heroin and 4 grams of Charas from his Chappal at the main gate of the jail.
2. Earlier the bail was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali on 5‑5‑1998.
3. The bail is pressed on the grounds that the jail staff demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner which was not paid and thereafter he was tortured and with a view to make out some defence the petitioner was involved in the instant case and that there was no occasion to procure intoxicant from am. quarter and that the present case is better example of misuse of powers by the State functionaries. It is further submitted that the Control o: Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has since been promulgated but even then case against the petitioner has been registered under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 with mala fide intention because the sentence provided under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provides sentence only two years and the offence would be bailable one and that section 9 (ibid) was not inserted with mala fide intention.
4. The bail is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and that recovery has been effected from his Chappal. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H. B. T./G‑31/L Bail granted.