Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1425
[Lahore]
Before Sajjad Ahmed Sipra, J
MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4467/B of 1993, decided on 23rdJanuary, 1994.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4---Bail, grant of---Recovery being of ten grams of heroin, the offence was not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497, CI.P.C: --Applicability of Art.3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 called for further inquiry as, prima facie, no case of any attempt by the accused to sell heroin was made out---Recovery was in violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. read with S.165(4), Cr.P.C: -- Accused who was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal was in judicial custody for over four months and was no longer required by thePolice---Case of accused was duly covered by S.497(2), Cr.P.C. and he was allowed bail accordingly.
Ch. Liaqat Ali alongwith Muhammad Anwar Naru for Petitioner.
Sultan Mahmood for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1994.
ORDER
The petitioner is accused of offences under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.194, dated 11-9-1993, registered at Police Station Qila Deedar Singh, District Gujranwala.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sate were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. Admittedly, the alleged recovery is of ten grams of heroin and as such the instant case is not hit by the prohibitory clause, the punishment for the same being two years' R.I. and that there is nothing on the record even prima facie, to make out a case of any attempt by the petitioner to sell heroin and as such the applicability of Article 3 ibid calls for further inquiry. Furthermore, although the petitioner was apprehended pursuant to the raid, on receipt of a secret information; yet the alleged recovery is in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. read with subsection (4) of section 165, Cr.P.C. In addition thereto, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over four months and is no longer required by the police and that he is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal.
3. Therefore, pursuant to what has been stated above, the case of the petitioner is duly covered under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
N.H.Q./M-1475/L Bail allowed.