YLR 2006

2006 PLP 1975 (YLR)

MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.664-B of 2006, decided on 28th March, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 1975 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, JJ
Parties MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1975 (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 2006 PLP 1975 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1975 (YLR) (MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Ch. Muhammad Tariq Niaz for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Persons named in F.I.R. were alleged to be openly selling narcotics, but no such activity was found by the raiding party

Accused was apprehended and according to F.I.R. Charas was recovered from the house of co-accused who was brother of accused--Samples from each of the 20 packets, were not taken and packets were opened and contents thereof were mixed and weighed, which procedure was curious

Co-accused had since been declared innocent

Case of accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Syed M. Hashim v. Circle Officer Anti-Corruption 2002 PCr.LJ 440 ref. Yousaf Sayed for the State. Sardar Ali. A.S.-I. with Records.

Judgment & Decree

On 3-7-2005, Allah Ditta, A.S.-I. filed a report at Police Station, Karampur, District Vehari that while he was present at Bhatta Umar Din along with other police officials an informer reported that the petitioner along with his brother Aziz Ahmad and Muhammad Ramzan son of Ali Ahmad are openly selling narcotics. He arranged a raiding party and raided in Basti Pir Chhatta. The said three persons were present who ran away and were chased. Mumtaz Ahmad was arrested who stated the names of the other two persons. Upon his pointation 20 packets of Charas were recovered from the eastern wall of the house of Aziz Ahmad. These were opened and mixed together and weight was found to be 20 Kgs. Ten grams were separated and two parcels were prepared. A case under section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 was registered vide F.I.R. No. 152 dated 30-7-2005 at the said police station. The petitioner applied for bail which was refused by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mailsi on 30-1-2006.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery was made from the person of the petitioner and Aziz Ahmad from whose house the recovery has been allegedly made, has been declared innocent. He further contends that the A.S.-I. could not have conducted the raid.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. However, it is not denied that Aziz Ahmad has been found to be innocent. As to the competency of the A.S.-I. to conduct raid he relies on the case "Syed M. Hashim v. Circle Officer Anti-Corruption" 2002 PCr.LJ 440.

4. We have gone through the available records. Now we have already reproduced above the contents of the F.I.R. It will be seen that whereas it was allegedly reported that the persons named therein are openly selling narcotics no such activity was found by the raiding party. Mumtaz Ahmad was apprehended and according to the F.I.R. Charas was recovered from the house of Aziz Ahmad. Now we have examined the recovery Memo. We find that somehow or the other, samples from each of the 20 packets were not taken. On the other hand the packets were opened and the contents A were mixed and weighed. This procedure is rather curious to say the least. Aziz Ahmad, brother of the petitioner has since been declared innocent. In the said peculiar circumstances of the case, we do find that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry, to be determined in the course of trial, if any.

5. Crl. Miscellaneous accordingly is allowed. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00,000 with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-220/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.