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.1966/B of 1986, decided on 2nd August, 1986.
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Raid case‑‑Rule of consistency‑‑Bogus purchaser purchased Heroin from co‑accused‑‑Accused found in possession of 50 grams of Heroin‑‑No witness of recovery from public‑‑ Co‑accused allowed bail‑‑Rule of consistency invoked‑‑Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
Ejaz Anwar for Petitioner.
On receipt of a secret information that the petitioner alongwith one Zulfiqar were dealing in Heroin in Sooter Mandi, Lahore, the police formed a raiding party and sent Muhammad Ashiq F.I.O. as bogus purchaser who allegedly purchased 5 grams of Heroin for a sum of Rs .150 from Zulfiqar. Later the tainted notes of Rs.150 were recovered from the possession of Zulfiqar besides 55 grams of Heroin. The petitioner alongwith him was also arrested from whom 50 grams of Heroin was recovered. The Chemical Examiner's report showed that the commodity recovered from the possession of the petitioner was Heroin. The petitioner is in jail since 29‑4‑1986, the day of raid. The investigation in this case is complete and the trial is stated to have since commenced. The 1tioner applied for the grant of bail in the lower Court, but remained 'successful, hence this petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record produced by Tariq Mahmud, S.I.
3. Zulfiqar co‑accused of the petitioner, from whom the bogus purchaser Muhammad Ashiq had purchased Heroin for a sum of Rs.150 has been allowed bail by me on 20‑7‑1986 (Criminal Miscellaneous No.1803‑B of 1986) on the ground that he was a raw youth and that there was no witness of recovery from the public. The petitioner has sought bail, invoking the rule of consistency as his co‑accused on the same facts has been enlarged on bail. Admittedly the bogus purchaser had not purchased Heroin from the petitioner and that the recovery of Heroin from him too was not seen by a witness from the public as in the case of Zulfiqar co‑accused. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer