1987 P Cr (PLP)
TEHMAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, J |
| Parties | TEHMAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (TEHMAS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tasleem Hussain for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969, S . 156 (8) (89 ) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Two Kgs. Heroin recovered from accused‑‑No challan submitted as yet‑‑Bail already granted under Customs Act‑‑Accused neither previous convict nor hardened or desperate criminal‑‑Case of accused, held, not covered by fourth proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑Though punishment provided for offence was imprisonment for life, case would fall under Cl. (1) of third proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. and accused was entitled to be released on bail as matter of right if detained for period exceeding one year and his trial had not been concluded‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Mian Muhammad Ajmal. Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tasleem Hussain for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Ajmal. Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1986. Accused petitioner stands charged under section 156(8)(89) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for allegedly despatching the vegetables crate containing two kilograms of Heroin to his brother (co‑accused) when he was apprehended red‑handed by the Customs authorities on the spot. Accused‑petitioner and his co‑accused Azam Khan have allegedly made confession. There were to be submitted separate challans in the matter one under the Customs Act and the other under the Prohibition Order but the prosecution could not file any challan in the Court as yet.
2. Accused‑petitioner approached the Court of Special Judge Customs under the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. who granted him bail not as a matter of grace but as of right vide his order, dated 14‑6‑1986. Accused‑petitioner then applied for his release on bail for offence under the Prohibition Order before the Illaqa Magistrate and next before the Additional Sessions Judge but to no avail. Hence, he approached this Court.
3. Accused‑petitioner's case does not apparently fall under the fourth' proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr. P . C . as he is neither a previously convicted offender nor he is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General tried to distinguish the case as under the Customs Act the maximum sentence for the offence is ten years while under the Prohibition Order the maximum sentence for the offence is imprisonment for life. Any how, the third proviso to subsection (1) does not make any difference between the sentence of imprisonment. In either case when the offence is not punishable with death the case is to fall under clause (1) of the third proviso and if the accused is detained for an offence for a continuous period exceeding one year and his trial has not been concluded he shall be released on bail as a matter of right.
4. In the circumstances, this Court would order the release of the accused‑petitioner on bail on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. S.A./498/P Bail granted.