SCMR 2021

2021 PLP 1804 (SCMR)

GUL MANAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 265 of 2021, decided on 21st April, 2021.
Honorable Judges
Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2021 PLP 1804 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ
Parties GUL MANAN — 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 2021 PLP 1804 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1804 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1804 (SCMR) (GUL MANAN — 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

  • Noor Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Misc./B.A. No. 223-P of 2021)

S. 497(2)

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

Possession and trafficking of narcotics

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Conscious knowledge of narcotics

When the vehicle was stopped by the police, the accused was merely sitting in the vehicle and he was not driving it

Narcotics were allegedly recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle

No connection was found between the said vehicle and the accused and nothing was recovered either form possession of accused or on his pointation

Question as to whether the accused, who was not the driver of the vehicle, had conscious knowledge of the narcotics concealed in the vehicle needed serious consideration, which shall be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence

In the circumstances, case against the accused called for further inquiry falling within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was allowed bail. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.

Impugned herein is the order dated 19.02.2021, whereby bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in case FIR No. 01, dated 01.01.2021, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Lower Kuram, District Kurram.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of State at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that it has not been disputed that when the vehicle was stopped by the police, the petitioner was merely sitting in the vehicle and he was not driving the said vehicle. Narcotics were allegedly recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State after going through the file confirms that there is no connection of the petitioner with the said vehicle and even nothing was recovered from his personal possession or on his pointation. He, however, contends that petitioner was in the vehicle and in the circumstances it can be safely presumed that he had conscious knowledge of the narcotics concealed in that vehicle. and even he attempted to run away from the spot, when the police signaled the vehicle to stop. The question, the petitioner who was not a driver of the vehicle had conscious knowledge of narcotics concealed in the vehicle needs serious consideration, which shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In the circumstances, case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant-Gul Manan is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (five hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/G-22/SC Bail granted.