2010 PLP 1854 (MLD)
Syed MOHSIN RAZA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1854 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed MOHSIN RAZA — 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 2010 PLP 1854 (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 1854 (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 1854 (MLD) (Syed MOHSIN RAZA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ahsan Nizami for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15
Two co-accused had already been admitted to bail and case of accused was not distinguishable from them
Rule of consistency would come into play in case of accused, in circumstances
Judgment & Decree
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.
Syed Mohsin Raza petitioner by way of the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in Case No. 37 registered under sections 9(c) and 15 of the C.N.S.A., 1997 with Police Station A.N.F., Lahore on 29-4-2009.
2. The facts of this case stood already mentioned in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9497-B of 2009, decided on 29-9-2009, filed by the petitioner's co-accused Muhammad Zahoor Tahir. We, therefore, avoid to repeat the same.
3. It has been argued on his behalf that he has falsely been roped; in that there is no tangible evidence against him connecting him with the offence alleged; that his co-accused Qayyum and Tahir Mehmood Awan have already been admitted to bail by the learned Judge Special Court, C.N.S.A. Lahore and his case is not distinguishable from them and he so, is also entitled to indulgence by this Court in the instant matter.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor submits that he has nothing to offer as against such submissions because of the fact the record has not made available from the Government of Doha, where alleged the heroin was recovered.
5. We have considered the submissions carefully and gone through the available record. It has not been shown that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of his said co-accused. We, therefore, find that the rule of consistency would come into play in his case. We, therefore, find it an appropriate case to release him on bail.
6. In this view of the matter, we accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. H.B.T./M-442/L Bail granted.