1985 P Cr (PLP)
HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Fakhruddin H. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Fakhruddin H. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (HAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qurban Ali H. Chohan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th September, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
S. 497/498‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 4 & 16‑‑Owning/possession of intoxicant‑‑Accused searched for recovery of heroin inside his house‑‑Offence, held, cognizable only if committed in a public place‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
S. 497/498‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 4 & 16‑‑Owning/possession of intoxicant‑‑Accused searched for recovery of heroin inside his house‑‑Offence, held, cognizable only if committed in a public place‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Qurban Ali H. Chohan for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 25th September, 1984. The applicant is facing trial for offence under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, From the F.I.R. It appears that the Excise Sub‑Inspector had searched the person of the applicant inside the latter's house and recovered heroin. Article 16 of the said Order shows that offence under Article 4 shall be cognizable only if it is committed in a public place. The search of the applicant in his house was, therefore, illegal. Due to this illegality, it is contended that the applicant is entitled to bail. In support of this argument reliance has been placed on unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.901/1984 decided by the undersigned on 13‑9‑1984, Criminal Bail Application No.838/1984 decided by this Court on 28‑8‑1984 and Criminal Bail Application No.870/1984 decided on 13‑9‑1984, in which almost under similar circumstances the accused /applicants were held entitled to bail. The application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on furnishing surety in the amount of Rs.20,000 and P.R. in like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. M. Y. H. Bail granted.