2005 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STA'T'E‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STA'T'E‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 P Cr (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 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STA'T'E‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Asmat Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3/4‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was in custody for the last more than six months, but trial had not commenced‑‑‑Investigating Officer had not been able to point out that accused was a previous record‑holder or involved in a case of similar nature‑‑‑Place wherefrom alleged recovery had been effected did not belong to the accused and possibility that accused had gone there as a visitor, could not be ruled out‑‑‑Offence with which accused was charged did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Trial of case having not commenced, accused could not be retained in custody as a measure of punishment‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Walayat Umar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Walayat Umar for the State. Date of hearing: 29th June, 2004. Muhammad Akram son of Imam Din seeks his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.806 of 2003, dated 26‑12‑2003 for offences under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as unfolded by the complainant Munir Yousaf, A.S.‑I. was that the latter along with certain police officials was present near the graveyard of Hashmi Colony when it was revealed that in the courtyard of the house of one Iftikhar Ahmad the said Iftikhar Amjad alias Hero and the present petitioner were distilling indigenous liquor through a still; that on seeing the police party Iftikhar Ahmad, Zulfiqar Ali, and Amjad alias Hero made good their escape whereas the petitioner was overpowered and from the spot a working still, one bottle of distilled liquor two gas cylinders, a can and a plastic pipe, etc. were taken into possession. Out of the bottle of liquor, 6 ounces were separated for chemical analysis. Accordingly the instant case was registered.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 26‑12‑2003 i.e. the day when the case was registered and is in custody ever since.
4. I have heard Mr. Imran Asmat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Walayat Umar, the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record brought by Talib, A.S.‑I.
5. It has been noticed that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than six months but the trial has yet not commenced. The' Investigating Officer has not been able to point out that the petitioner is a previous record‑holder or involved in a case of similar nature. The place wherefrom the alleged recovery had been effected admittedly does not belong to the petitioner and the possibility that he had gone there as a visitor cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise the offences with which the petitioner is charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The trial has not yet commenced and the petitioner cannot be retained in custody as a measure of punishment.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post‑arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./659/L Bail granted.