MLD 2010

2010 PLP 773 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2009-December-15
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 773 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
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 2010 PLP 773 (MLD)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 773 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 773 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Muhammad Ahsan Nizami for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25

Possession of narcotics

Bail, grant of

"Charas" weighing four kilograms was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused

Accused was behind the bars for the last three years anti only two prosecution witnesses had so far been examined in the case by Trial Court

Conclusion of trial in the near future was not likely

Early decision of the case was right of accused

Accused was not responsible for delay in conclusion of the trial and he could not be kept in jail for an indefinite period

Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.692, dated 17-12-2006 under sections 9(c)/25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Pattoki District Kasur.

2. The prosecution case in brief as narrated in the F.I.R. is that on spy information the police party headed by Muhammad Hayat, Sub-Inspector apprehended the petitioner and his co-accused and on search four kilograms charas was recovered from possession of the petitioner. Hence the F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that four kilograms charas was recovered from possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is behind the bars from 17-12-2006 continuously and statements of two witnesses have been recorded so far and there is no likelihood of earlier conclusion of the trial, therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail.

4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposes the bail on the ground that huge quantity of charas has been recovered from direct possession of the petitioner and that the trial is in progress.

5. The petitioner is behind the bars since 17-12-2006 and till date only two P.Ws. could be recorded by the learned trial Court. Early decision of the case is right of every accused and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future. The petitioner is not responsible for delay in conclusion of the trial. He cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N,H.Q./M-866/L Bail granted.