Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASEEM ZAIB VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 2353
[Lahore]
Before Rao Naeem Hasham Khan, J
NASEEM ZAIB and another---Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2837/B of 1994, decided on 12th September, 1994
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 497(2) & 103---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4---Bail, grant of---Recovery had been effected in violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. from a car which was not a public place---Case against accused, therefore, was doubtful and needed further inquiry---Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem.
Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, A.A.-G.
ORDER
Petitioners have applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered against them vide F. I. R. No.206/1994 dated 6-3-1994 under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 at Police Station Nawan Kot, C. I. A., Lahore.
2. Petitioners post-arrest bail applications were dismissed on 24-3-1994 and 6-4-1994 by Illaqa Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore respectively.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent; that the recoveries are fake and no independent witness has been taken from where the recoveries have been made and statutory provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. has been violated that the alleged recovery was being effected in a car and it is not a public place. Moreover, the offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other head, learned counsel for State submits that the accused were caught red-handed alongwith 260 Cuppies of liquor in their possession; that the case is proved against them beyond any reasonable doubt.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, there is a clear violation of provision 103, Cr.P.C. and recovery has been effected from a car which is not a public place. It makes the case doubtful and' a case of further inquiry. This being the position the A petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing their bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with one surety to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Lahore.
7. Observation made in this order shall not effect the merits of the case.
N. H. Q./N-273/L Bail allowed,