Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AZIZULLAH VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 2439
1997 M L D 2439
[Lahore]
Before Falak Sher, J
AZIZULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5104‑B of 1994, decided on 19th December, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑No private person having been associated with alleged recovery of "Charas" despite advance information, it had rendered recovery doubtful‑‑ Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was not attracted for lack of any evidence as to sale of Charas and complained of commodity did not attract prohibition contemplated by proviso 2 of Art.4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979‑‑‑Accused was no more required by Investigating Agency with the submission of challan and accused had already suffered nearly 6 months' imprisonment and commencement of trial was still beyond sight‑‑‑Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Miss Tasnim Ameen for the State.
Date of hearing: 19th December, 1994.
ORDER
Bail is being sought in the case registered vide F.I.R No. 73 of 7‑6‑1994 under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Daud Khel, District Mianwali alleging recovery of 2 kilograms of ' Charas' from petitioner's possession by a police patrol upon a tip off while housed in his hotel around 4‑30 p.m.
2. Contending that despite the advance information no private person with the alleged recovery having been associated renders it, amenable to doubt; Article 3 is not attracted for lack of any evidence as to sale; the complaint of commodity doesn't attract the prohibition contemplated by proviso 2 of Article 4 (ibid), with the submission of challan is no more required by the Investigating Agency on which count he has already suffered nearly 6 months' imprisonment while commencement of the trial is beyond sight.
3. Which has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State without joining issue with the contentions urged.
4. In view whereof petitioner is allowed bail upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A.842/L Bail granted.