BABAR ISLAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Babar Islam, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following his arrest for the alleged possession of 850 grams of heroin. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that there were no reasonable grounds to believe he committed the offence, that the prosecution intended to rely solely on police witnesses without independent public witnesses, and that his continued detention was unnecessary as the investigation was complete. The State opposed the application. Upon review, the Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since July 24, 1984, was not a previous convict, and was no longer required for investigative purposes. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing the trial, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and they are no longer required for further inquiry?
- Does the absence of public witnesses in a narcotics raid constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
ORDER
' This is an application for bail on behalf of Babar Islam petitioner in a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at P.S. Misri Shah, vide F.I.R. No,260/203, dated 24-7-1984.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in possession of 850 grams of Heroin on 24-7-1984.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are not reasonable grounds to believe that no petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged, that the prosecution intends to examine police officials only, that no public man was joined in the raid and that the petitioner is no more required for investigation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the plea (sic) of the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner was arrested on 24-7-1984, that he is no more required for investigation and that he is not a previous convict. Without making expression of opinion on merits, lest it may prejudice the trial of the petitioner/accused, I feel inclined to admit him to bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 5 cases
- SHAHZAD ALI vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 1480
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE 1990 MLD 193
- Mst. TAJ BIBI vs THE STATE 1989 PLD Quetta 60
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias BILLU vs THE STATE 1986 MLD 1152
- GEORGE Alias KAKA vs THE STATE- 1986 P Cr. L J 1086