1989 PLP 3293 (MLD)
Mst. SARDAR BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3293 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher, J |
| Parties | Mst. SARDAR BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3293 (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 1989 PLP 3293 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Falak Sher, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3293 (MLD) (Mst. SARDAR BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Pervaiz Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 7989.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4- Dangerous Drugs Act (111 of 1930), S.14--Bail--Challan pending in Trial Court- Prosecution witnesses present in Court on two dates, but could not be examined on accused's count--Bail refused on this short ground alone. Ghulam Qadir Sukhera for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mian M. Pervaiz Akhtar for Petitioner. Ghulam Qadir Sukhera for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 7989. Petitioner is seeking bail in a case registered, vide F.I.R. No.210/88, dated 26-7-1988, under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 at Police Station Outabpur, Multan, alleging recovery of 15 grams of heroin from her person; by contending femininity, confinement in jail for the last six months and that it is a case of further inquiry.
2. Learned counsel for the State contested the bail petition by submitting that challan is pending in Court since 28-8-1988, and trial of the case has been hampered at petitioner's instance viz. six prosecution witnesses were present on 28-3-1989, while 4 were present on 12-4-1989, but could not be examined on petitioner's count; which fact has remained uncontroverted. Consequently, on this short ground alone, I am not inclined to grant concession of bail to the petitioner; rather I am of the view that interest of justice would be better served if trial of the case, which is reportedly pending in the Court of Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, is concluded expeditiously. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to finalize the case before 31-5 1989, compliance report whereof should be sent to the Registrar of this Court. N.H.Q./S-440/L Bail refused.