Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 202

Mst. ZAR BANO vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 202
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No. 60-K of 1987
Date1988-12-07
Judge(s)Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza
Authored byAbdul Kadir Shaikh
ResultBail confirmed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, which refused to grant pre-trial bail to the petitioner facing trial under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for allegedly possessing approximately 150 grams of heroin powder. The core legal questions concern whether the detention of a female petitioner with a suckling child in deteriorating health warrants bail, and whether recovery of contraband from a private house rather than a public place renders the offence bailable under Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the Sessions Judge, and confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that valid grounds relating to the welfare of a suckling child and the nature of the place of recovery can establish a fit case for the grant of bail in narcotics matters.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the detention of a woman with a suckling child whose health is suffering justify the grant of bail?
  • Whether possession of a contraband article in a private house rather than a public place makes the offence bailable under Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
  • Article 16, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibition orderwoman with suckling childrecovery from private housebailable offence

ORDER

1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the Order of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 26-7-1987 refusing to grant petitioner's request for bail pending her trial in a case under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for being in possession of about 150 grams of heroin powder.

2. Petitioner is a woman with a suckling child, and it is firstly submitted that her retention in jail is detrimental to the health of the child who has fallen ill. It is further submitted that since; according to the prosecution case itself, petitioner was found in possession of the contraband article in her house, which cannot be said to be a public place, the offence, if any, committed by the petitioner is bailable by virtue of Article 16 of the Prohibition Order 1979.

3. ' These points were also pressed into service when the case came up for hearing before one of us (Mr. Justice Zaffar Hussain Murza, J.) on 4-8-1987 and in support of the first plea reliance was placed on the cases of Khaitijan v. State (1987 P Cr. L J 1359), Mukhtiar Hussain v. State (1983 P Cr. L J 1787) and Mst. Waheedan v. State (1975 P Cr. L J 130).

4. ' On the second point reliance was placed on the cases of Rehmatullah v. State (1987 P Cr. L J 1409) and Hayat v. State (1985 P Cr. L J 1353).

5. Since the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were supported by the aforesaid reported decisions petitioner was granted interim bail on 4-8-1987 and today also the aforesaid pleas have been urged in support of this petition for leave to appeal.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record before us, we find that a valid case in law has been made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and allow it and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and also the one dated 14-6-1987 passed by the Sessions Judge refusing to grant appellant's request for bail.

7. The bail granted to the appellant by the order of this Court dated 4-8-1987 is confirmed.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.