2007 PLP 387 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 387 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Rashid and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 387 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 387 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Rashid and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 387 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazhar Hussain Tahir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)-Bail, grant of
According to police record, Investigating Officer, who had recorded the statements of all prosecution witnesses under S.161, Cr. P. C.; had admitted that he had got Ziminis of the police file as well as statements under S.161, Cr. P. C. of all witnesses recorded by constable and he had merely signed the same
No mention existed in the police file that constable had recorded the Ziminis and statements of the prosecution witnesses on the dictation of Investigating Officer
File showed that recording of the statements under S.161, Cr. P. C. constituted an essential material linking accused with the occurrence, was legally missing, which had made the case of accused a matter of further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Walayat Umar for the State. Saif Ullah, S.I. and Sabir Hussain; S.I.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner through this petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.78 of 2005, dated 28-2-2005, under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Aroop, Gujranwala.
2. According to the prosecution case the allegations set up in the F.I.R. are that Shabbir Hussain, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala along with Sabir Hussain, S.I. Sadaqat Ali, S.I. and other police officials were on patrol duty, when they received a secret information that the petitioner was selling charas at Bus Stand, Aroop and consequently they raided the petitioner and apprehended him and recovered 800 grams from his custody which was taken into possession through a memo. prepared by the said S.H.O. and attested by Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Akhtar, Constables. A sample sealed parcel weighting 10 grams was also prepared which was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner whose report confirmed the contents to be that of charas. Consequently, the investigation was entrusted to Sabir Hussain, S.I. who recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and concluded the investigation.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that a false case has been made out and that the investigation in this case has not been conducted in accordance with law which makes the case of the petitioner a matter of further inquiry.
4. Sabir Hussain, S.I. who had conducted the investigation of this case, according to the police record, had recorded the statements of all the P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. is present in Court. He has frankly admitted that he had got Zimnis of the police file as well as statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of all witnesses recorded by Nasir, Constable and he had merely signed the same. There is no mentioning of this fact in the police file that Nasir, Constable had recorded the Zimni and statements of the P.Ws. on the dictation of Sabir Hussain and in fact the A police file reveals that the Zimnis as well as statements of all the P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded by Sabir Hussain, S.I. himself, therefore, on the file recording of the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. which constitutes an essential material linking the petitioner with the occurrence, is legally missing and it thus makes the case of the petitioner 'a matter of further inquiry and as such he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-237/L Bail granted.