Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SULEMAN VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Sh. Ijaz Nisar Title: SULEMAN vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No,3424/B of 1989 Date of Judgment:1989-10-09 Reported As: 1990 P Cr. L J 1302 Result: Bail allowed
Judgment ORDER ' Suleman petitioner seeks bail in a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979). It is alleged that a secret information was received that he indulged in drugs trafficking on which a raiding party comprising S.H.O., Police Station Sukheki and other police officials was formed and the house of the petitioner was raided on 27-1-1989. It is also alleged that he was found selling drugs. 120 grams of heroin and 295 grams of opium were recovered from a box lying there. 2. Bail is urged on the grounds that there is no public witness to the alleged raid/recovery. Since the alleged offence was not committed at a public pldkate, it was non-cognizable and the police could not investigate. Furthermore, the police did not obtain search-warrants from the Collector, Prohibition Officer or Magistrate before carrying out search of the petitioner's house. ' Reliance has been placed on Hayat v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1353 and Mukhtar alias Karoo v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 591. The petitioner is behind the bars since January, 1989 without any progress in the trial. 3. Admittedly no search-warrant was obtained by the raiding party for making a search of the petitioner's house. The cognoscibility of the offence under Article 3/4 not committed at a public place is also open to question. In these circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,35,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Hafizabad.