Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.322/B of 1984, decided on 17th November, 1984.
---S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail‑‑Fact that accused was aged 19 or 20 years, held, no ground to allow bail.‑‑[Age].
‑‑‑S.497(1), first proviso‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail‑‑Accused's case not covered by S.497(1) first proviso, Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail refused.
-‑‑Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Dealing with trafficing in drugs, held, not only a crime against State but a heinous crime against humanity‑-‑Court not to be oblivious of this situation‑‑A serious view has therefore to be taken in such like cases.
Khawaja Muhammad Yousuf Saraf for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim for the State.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1984.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Javaid Raza petitioner who is accused of an offence under Article 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The prosecution case is that Javaid Akhtar A.S.I. was on patrol duty at the Bus stand, Gujjar Khan when he saw a person trying to slip away in suspicious circumstances on seeing the police party. He was apprehended. On inquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Javaid Raza (the present petitioner). He was having a flask in his hand. On opening the same, it was found to be full of heroin. On weighing, the same was found to be 600 grams. At this, Javaid Raza petitioner was arrested and the said A.S.I. got the present case registered against him. The petitioner was unsuccessful in his plea for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1tawalpindi. Hence this petition.
2. In support of this petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Article 3 of the Ordinance are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case; that even if the facts are admitted, then also only an offence under section 4 could be said to have been prima facie made out against the petitioner which is punishable with two years only; and finally that the petitioner is only aged 19 or 20 years and as such, should not be kept in judicial lock‑up. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.
3. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find them without any substance. The fact that the petitioner is aged 19 or 20 years is no ground to allow bail in the instant case. So far as the first two points are concerned, it may be observed that the law has since been changed by the President's Order No.12 of 1983 dated 26‑12‑1983 by which Articles 3 and 4 were amended and these offences were made punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which is not less than two years and with whipping not exceeding 30 stripes and also with fine. In this view of the matter, B the petitioner could be granted bail only if his case is covered by proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The use of drugs like heroin is increasing and involving not only the delinquents but unfortunately the raw youth of this country as well. It has in fact become a big menace. The use of drugs like heroin results in mental disorder with alternating periods of elations and depression. As a result, there is gradual deterioration of the highest centres of brain resulting in gradual change in character and c conduct, affecting the social and moral conditions of the people. The Courts thus, cannot and should not be oblivious of this situation. The dealing with and trafficing in drugs is not only a crime against the State but in my view a heinous crime against humanity. A serious view has, therefore, to be taken in such like cases. The learned counsel invited my attention to three judgments allowing bail in such like cases by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.249/B‑84, Criminal Miscellaneous No.12/B‑C‑84 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20/B‑C‑84, in support of his arguments. I have considered these judgments and find that the bail in those cases was allowed keeping in view the facts and circum stances of the respective cases. Secondly, the question that the offfences under sections of the Ordinance were punishable with imprisonment for life, were not considered.
5. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer