2011 YLR 654 (PLP)
ADAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 YLR 654 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain and Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ |
| Parties | ADAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 YLR 654 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 YLR 654 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain and Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 YLR 654 (PLP) (ADAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shoaib Kokhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)
Further investigation
Case against accused was slightly on the higher side of the upper limit of S.9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Accused was stated to be previous non-convict and was behind the 'bars since 17-8-2010, date of his arrest
Accused was no more required by the Police for the purpose of further investigation
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Ch. Karamat Ali, D.P.G. for the State. Muhammad Ehsan, S.-I. with police record.
Judgment & Decree
Through the instant petition, Adam Khan, petitioner has sought for his post arrest bail in case F.I.R No.457 dated 17-8-2010, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Sadder Kamoke, District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution case, as per the FIR., is that on 17-8-2010, the petitioner was apprehended by the police and from his possession 1220 grams charas was recovered, besides sale money (wattak) Rs.4,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, who has been roped, in this case by the police just to show karvai. Learned counsel further states that nevertheless recovery has been shown effected from the petitioner, however, there is no independent witness qua the same. Even otherwise, learned counsel submits, case of the petitioner is on border line of section 9(b) of the Act. It is further contended that the petitioner is previous non-convict and behind the bars since the date of his arrest and no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Learned D.P.-G., on the other hand, has opposed the petition with vehemence with the contention that huge quantity of contraband charas was recovered from his possession.
5. In the light of arguments we have gone through the record.
6. Bare perusal of record reveals that case against the petitioner is slightly on the higher side of the upper limit of section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner is stated to be previous non-convict and behind the bars since the date of his arrest. Moreover, he is no more required by .the police for the purpose of further investigation.
7. In such circumstances of the case, we have been persuaded to allow this petition as a consequence whereof, the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-13/L Bail granted.