Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM RASOOL alias SOOLA VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: GHULAM RASOOL alias SOOLA vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No,1832/B of 1987 Date of Judgment:1987-06-17 Reported As: 1987 MLD 1702 Result: Bail allowed
Judgment ORDER ' This is an application for grant of bail to Ghulam Rasool alias Soola petitioner in a case under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at P.S. Model Town, Gujranwala vide F.I.R. No,280 dated 10-5-1987. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had sold 5 grams of opium to a' fake purchaser which was subsequently recovered and that when the petitioner was apprehended by the Raiding Party, he was holding 1 K.G. Of opium in his hand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there. Are not reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence; that the petitioner is in jail since 10-5-1987; that he is not required for investigation; that he is not a previous convict and that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In that, the opium allegedly recovered from him does not exceed 1 K.G. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that opium weighing 1 K.G. And 5 grams was recovered from him and as such, the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the quantity of the opium which was allegedly sold by the petitioner to a fake purchaser has not been mentioned in the F.I.R., copy Annex. 'A' and as such, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is not a previous convict and that he is not required by the police for investigation. For what has been said above, I am of the view that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.