Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 102/B of 1986, decided on 15th January, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4‑of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑From individual possession of ‑accused only three grams of heroin recovered‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstance.

Syed Muhammad Saqlain Jafri for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 15th January, 1986:

This is an application for bail. A case is registered against the petitioner under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, at Police Station Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh on 16‑12‑1985. The allegation against him is that in usually conducted raid was recovered from his person three grams of heroin. There are co‑accused in this case from whose possession heroin was likewise recovered and the total amount of heroin recovered from three of them including the petitioner came to ten grams. Learned counsel states that so for the petitioner is concerned from his individual possession only three grams were recovered and, therefore, his case is not hit by the prohibitions clause.

2. Admit. Notice. Summon the Investigating Officer alongwith the police record on 22‑1‑1986.

In continuation of my order, dated 15‑1‑1984 Mr. Akhtar Shabir A.A.‑G. concedes that from independent possession of the petitioner only 3 grams of heroin was recovered and, therefore, the case was not hit by the prohibitory clause. He, however, states that the house of one of the co‑accused was raided and this co‑accused who was the owner of the house ran away, whereas the petitioner alongwith two other co‑accused were apprehended on the spot and from each of them was recovered 5 grams, 3 grams and 2 grams heroin, collectively and jointly the aggregate come to 10 grams of heroin and that if the case was examined from this point of view, then the collective amount of heroin recovered from the petitioner and his two co‑accused would be hit by the prohibitory clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even then it would not be hit by the prohibitory clause because the words used are 'exceeding 10 grams' in the Proviso. Be that as it may, since from individual possession of the petitioner 3 grams of heroin was recovered, his case is not hit by the prohibitory clause. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court. This petition is disposed of.

S.G.D. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.