Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Bail Application 1354 and. Miscellaneous Application No. 1468 of 1986, decided on 7th September, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156 (1)(8)‑‑Bail‑‑Accused being prosecuted in two cases, registered under Customs Act and Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, on same set of facts in respect of same property‑‑Legal points raised by accused supported by case‑law‑‑Bail granted.
1980 P Cr. L J 759 and 1980 S C M R 725 rel.
Raja Qureshi for Applicant.
A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Applicant Murad son of Lal Bux has been challaned to stand trial for an offence punishable under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 registered by F.I.A. on 20‑2‑1986. It is alleged that the applicant was undertaking air journey for Abu Dubai on 20‑2‑1986 when he was held by the F.I.A. personnel on a spy information that he was smuggling narcotics by the intended flight. His personal was searched and opium weighing about 70 grams was allegedly recovered from the socks he was wearing. His baggage which was canvas bag also was seized and it was found containing a large quantity of Heroin and Chars. A case under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act and another case under Prohibition and (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 were registered against him. A bail application filed on his behalf in the case under the aforesaid order in the Sessions Court, Karachi East, was dismissed by the learned Session Judge, by his order, dated 19‑4‑1986.
The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that two cases have been registered against the applicant on the same set of facts and in respect of the same property and he has advanced the argument that the applicant cannot be convicted for offences twice in view of the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, and Article 13 of the Constitution and section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1980 P Cr. L J 759 and 1980 S C M R 725.
The learned A.A.‑G. has opposed the application contending that a large quantity of narcotics was recovered from the applicant and cases under the Customs Act and also under the aforesaid order could be registered against him and he can be prosecuted therefor. He has expressed the opinion that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant would be of avail to the applicant when the cases against him are decided.
The applicant is being prosecuted in two cases registered under different Laws. The case under the Customs Act is technically earlier in point of time and the applicant has been sent up in that case earlier than the case under the aforesaid Order. The legal points raised by the learned counsel get support from the cases cited by him. Accordingly, bail is granted in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, each solvent in the sum of Rs.25,000. Sureties to be furnished before Nazir of this Court as requested by the learned counsel.
M.Y.H./M‑76/K Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer