HAYAT vs THE STATE
This bail application concerns an accused facing trial for an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of heroin from his person inside his private residence by an Excise Sub-Inspector. The core legal question was whether the search and subsequent recovery, conducted within a private house rather than a public place, rendered the proceedings illegal and entitled the applicant to bail. The Court held that, pursuant to Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, an offence under Article 4 is only cognizable if committed in a public place. Consequently, the search of the applicant's person within his private house was deemed illegal. Relying on established precedents, the Court concluded that this illegality entitled the applicant to the grant of bail. The principle laid down is that a search and recovery conducted in violation of the statutory requirement that an offence under Article 4 must occur in a public place to be cognizable vitiates the legality of the recovery, thereby providing sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.
- Is an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, cognizable if committed in a private house?
- Does an illegal search and recovery of narcotics from a private residence entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 16, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is facing trial for offence under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. From the F.I.R. It appears that the Excise Sub-Inspector had searched the person of the applicant inside the latfer's house and recovered heroin. Article 16 of the said Order shows that offence under Article 4 shall be cognizable only if it is committed in a public place. The search of the applicant in his house was, therefore, illegal. Due to this illegality, it is contended that the applicant is entitled to bail. In support of this argument reliance has been placed on unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,901/1984 decided by the undersigned on 13-9- 1984, Criminal Bail Application No,838/1984 decided by this Court on 28-8-1984 and Criminal Bail Application No,870/1984 decided on 13-9-1984, in which almost under similar circumstances the accused/applicants were held entitled to bail.
2. ' The application is allowed. The applicant shall be released on furnishing surety in the amount of Rs,20,000 and P.R. In like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
3. Bail granted.
Cited by 11 cases
- THE STATE vs KHALID KHAN 1996 MLD 37
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE 1997 P Cr. L J 736
- KHALIL AHMAD vs THE STATE 1994 MLD 1739
- SULEMAN vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 1302
- Rao MUHAMMAD JALEES alias JALOO vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 26
- Mst. ZAR BANO vs THE STATE 1989 SCMR 202
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus THE STATE 1988 PLD 574
- FAYYAZ Versus THE STATE 1988 MLD 530
- ARSHAD JAVED ALIAS BHOLA Versus THE STATE 1988 PCRLJ 1267
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus THE STATE 1987 MLD 2206
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE 1988 PLD 485