1996 PLP 612 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 612 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ahmed Sipra, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 612 (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 1996 PLP 612 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sajjad Ahmed Sipra, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 612 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Nazar Farid Khokhar for Petitioner Sabir Hussain Shad for the State.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 497, 103.& 165(4)‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Provisions of Ss.103 & 165(4), Cr.P.C. had not been complied with regard to search and recovery of alleged heroin from the possession of accused as no independent/notable witness of area had been associated therewith‑‑‑Only two grams of heroin having been sent to Chemical Examiner, even positive report in respect thereof, would not bring case of accused within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for almost last seven months and it was also confirmed on behalf of prosecution that accused was neither previous convict nor a hardened criminal and was no longer required by police‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail as his case was covered under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 497, 103.& 165(4)‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Provisions of Ss.103 & 165(4), Cr.P.C. had not been complied with regard to search and recovery of alleged heroin from the possession of accused as no independent/notable witness of area had been associated therewith‑‑‑Only two grams of heroin having been sent to Chemical Examiner, even positive report in respect thereof, would not bring case of accused within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for almost last seven months and it was also confirmed on behalf of prosecution that accused was neither previous convict nor a hardened criminal and was no longer required by police‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail as his case was covered under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. Malik Nazar Farid Khokhar for Petitioner Sabir Hussain Shad for the State. Date of hearing: 18th January, 1995. The petitioner is accused of offence under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 vide F.I.R. No.260/94, dated 5‑7‑1994 registered at Police Station Baseerpur, District Okara.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State have been heard at length in respect of the contention raised herein. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition and submitted that 80 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the petitioner which brings his case within the ambit of prohibitory clause.
3. However, taking into consideration that the provisions of section 103 read with subsection (4) of section 165, Cr.P.C. have not been complied with the search and recovery of the alleged heroin as no independent/notable witness of the area had been associated therewith, and furthermore only 2 grams of heroin had been sent to the Chemical Examiner, and that even, positive report in respect thereof shall not bring ‑the case of the petitioner within the ‑prohibitory clause; and as it is also confirmed on behalf of the State that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and is no longer required by the police and has been behind the bars almost for the last seven months, therefore, it is hereby held that the case of the petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A.C. Duty Magistrate, Depalpur, District Okara. H.B.T./M-2105/L Bail granted.