Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABID HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE STATE
2000 Y L R 2391
2000 Y L R 2391
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J
ABID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2162/1 of 1999, decided on 17th January, 2000.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4(4)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last about nine months and though challan of the case had been sent to the Court, but trial of case had not yet commenced ‑‑‑Co‑accused had been released on bail‑‑‑Alleged recovery had been effected from admiral of house which was locked by co‑accused‑‑‑Guilt of accused was yet to be determined by Court after recording evidence‑‑‑No useful purpose would be served in detaining accused in jail‑‑‑Offence against accused being not punishable with death or life imprisonment, same did not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Case against accused being of further inquiry, accused was ordered to be released on bail.
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner
Raja Sultan Khurram for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.67 dated 13‑3‑1999 under Article 3/4(4) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 13‑3‑1999, Imdad Ali, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Fateh Sher, Sahiwal, had recovered 500 grams of heroin from the house of the petitioner on the pointation of his co‑accused alongwith an amount of Rs.300 from the custody of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises of recovery was not in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had shifted to Karachi and he had come to attend a marriage ceremony in the family and he was involved in the case. The recovery was affected from an Almirah which was locked and the key of the lock was produced by the co‑accused Zahoorul Hassan, who has been released on bail and that the case of the petitioner is at par with the co- accused. Further contended that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than nine months and not required .for the purpose of investigation by the police; and that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for ‑the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard both sides and perused the record. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about nine months. The challan of the case has been sent to the Court and the trial of the case has not yet commenced. The co‑accused has been released on bail. The so called recovery has been affected from an Almirah of the house which was locked by the co‑accused (Zahoor‑ul‑Hassan). The guilt of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the Court after recording the evidence. No useful purposes would be served in detaining the petitioner in jail. The offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and, therefore, is not covered within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry.
6. In view of the above discussion, without prejudicing the merits of the case, this bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A‑64/L
Bail granted