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.732/B of 1986, decided on 9th April 1986.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--‑
‑‑S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Recovery of Heroin‑‑Recovery memo attested by Police officials only‑‑No public witness associated in proceedings‑--Accused in, jail for more than four months‑‑Case for enlargement of accused on bail, held, was made out in circumstances.
Mirza Muhammad Rashid Ahmad Raza for Petitioner.
Faiz-ur‑Rehman for the State.
Date of hearing: 9th April 1986.
Muhammad Aslam alias Billu petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The prosecution version is that on 30‑11‑1985 Muhammad Suleman A.S.I. received secret information that the petitioner was selling Heroin near Jamia Ashraf‑ul‑Madaris. Thereupon he proceeded to that site and apprehended the petitioner. On his personal search Heroin weighing 13 grams wrapped in plastic cover and a dagger were recovered from him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends the witness from the public was associated and only Police officials have been cited as recovery witnesses. He further submits that the petitioner is in Jail for the last four months and is no more required for the purposes of investigation, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. In support of the contention he has referred to Babar Islam v. The State 1985 P Cr: L J 2779. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have given my careful consideration to the submission mad by the learned counsel for the parties. The recovery memo. has been attested by A.S.I. a Head Constabl and a Foot Constable. No witness from the public was associated in the recovery proceedings. The petitioner was arrested on 30‑11‑1985 and is in Jail since then.
5. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to the view that a case for, his enlargement is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the su of Rs.10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant' Commissioner, Okara.
S.A. Bail allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer