Para Re Scan 883 (PLP)
UMER HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | Para Re Scan 883 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | UMER HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in Para Re Scan 883 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case Para Re Scan 883 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: Para Re Scan 883 (PLP) (UMER HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sikandar Bakhat for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Investigation in case was complete and accused was not required any more‑‑Accused was alleged to have admitted during investigation that he used to smoke and sell heroin‑‑Admission of accused before police being in custody was not of any help to prosecution‑‑Bail allowed to accused. Akhtar Shabbir Addl. A.‑G. and Abdus Samad Hashmi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑ Bail, grant of‑‑Investigation in case was complete and accused was not required any more‑‑Accused was alleged to have admitted during investigation that he used to smoke and sell heroin‑‑Admission of accused before police being in custody was not of any help to prosecution‑‑Bail allowed to accused. Syed Sikandar Bakhat for Petitioner. Akhtar Shabbir Addl. A.‑G. and Abdus Samad Hashmi for the State. The petitioner prays for bail in a case registered against him under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, with Police Station `B' Division, Gujrat, on 7‑7‑1988. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was apprehended under Gambling Act and during his search 15 grams of heroin was found in his pocket. In pursuance of the raid a separate case under the above‑noted section was registered. It is contended or learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is absolutely false. Submits that he is in jail for the last more than seven months without there being and progress in the case. Contends that there is neither any allegation nor evidence that the petitioner was selling or had the intention to sell the said heroin
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. During investigation the petitioner is alleged to have admitted that he used to smoke and sell heroin. I don't think this admission of the petitioner before the police can be of any help to the prosecution because it was made when he was in custody. The investigation is complete and the petitioner is not required for the said purpose and more. In these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.5.000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner /Duty Magistrate, Gujrat. H.B.T./U‑29/L Bail allowed.