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 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 259/B of 1987, decided on 11th February, 1987.
‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Ten grams of opium and ten grams of Charas recovered from personal search of accused by raiding party‑‑Another fifteen hundred grams of Charas and ten hundred and twenty grams of opium recovered from his house‑‑Offence falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Prima facie there could be no reason of planting such huge quantity on accused‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.
Muhammad Hanif Khatana for Petitioner.
Muhammad Rafiq for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th February, 1987.
Muhammad Ashraf petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. The prosecution version is that on 22‑10‑1986 Ashiq Ali, Sub- Inspector C.I.A., Sialkot, received information that Muhammad Ashraf (petitioner herein) was dealing in narcotics. He organised a raiding party consisting of himself. Muhammad Amin, Excise Inspector and other officials and went to the house of the petitioner in village Bal Shahan. The petitioner was present outside his house. He was apprehended. On his personal search Charas and opium weighing ten grams each was recovered.
The petitioner, after making a disclosure that he could lead to the recovery of more opium and Charas from his house, then led the raiding party to his house and got recovered fifteen hundred grams of Charas and ten hundred and twenty grams of opium from a Peti lying in the house. Samples of opium and Charas were sent to the Chemical Examiner and his report is to the effect that two packets contained Charas and two contained non -excise opium.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no respectable of the locality was associated in the recovery proceedings and only police and excise‑officials have been cited as recovery witnesses, therefore, there is no reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Ten grams of opium and ten grams of Charas was allegedly recovered on the personal search of the petitioner. He is further alleged to have led to the recovery of fifteen hundred grams of Charas and ten hundred and twenty grams of opium from his house. Prima facie, there is no reason to believe that such a huge quantity could be planted on him. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No ground for the grant of bail, is, therefore, made out. The petition is dismissed.
S.A. /M‑144/L Bail refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer