Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAFQAT RASHID VS Respondent: STATE
1990 P Cr
1990 P Cr. L J 947
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Nisar
SHAFQAT RASHID ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3198/B of 1989, decided on 20th September 1989.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
----S. 497---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts 3 & 4-- Bail, grant of---Heroin was recovered from the house of the accused -- Investigation was complete---Accused had no criminal history' and was a first, offender---Solitary public witness had denied the occurrence, while making statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Bail was allowed in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner.
MA. Choudhry for the State
ORDER
Shafqat Rashid petitioner who is said to be holding Master's Degree in the subject of Pharmacy from the Punjab University stands involved in a case under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 on the allegation that during raid on his house 22(10 grams of heroin were recovered oil 12-6-1989. The raiding party comprised of l1az Ahniad Bajwa, Inspector, F.I.A. Maqsud Inspector, Nasir Zaman, Muhammad Rafiq, Bashir Ahmad, Shabbir Hussain and Nazir Ahmad F.C s. F.IA. and one public witness, namely, Ahmad Zul Fazal.
2. - It is contended that the case is based on absolutely false allegations and is outcome of malice because the petitioner's brother Majid Ahmad had filed Writ Petition No.3009 of 1988 against Oamar-ud-Din Khan Director F.I.A. An apprehension was made in the said petition of his involvement in some false case. It is contended that search-warrants was essential before conducting a raid on the house of the petitioner but that was not obtained. Further that Ahmad Zul Fazal A the only public witness to the alleged recovery has made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. denying to have witnessed any such occurrence.
3. The investigation is complete. The petitioner has no criminal history and is a first offender. There is no public witness to the alleged recovery. Accordingly,) I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. one lac (Rs.1,00,000) with two A sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this) Court.
SA./S-629/L ' Bail allowed.