2004 P Cr (PLP)
ZAKIR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAKIR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (ZAKIR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(b) & 6/9
Accused had no criminal history and was not involved in any criminal case of like nature
Accused did not have notoriety as drug pusher either
Being first offender and also for the reason that quantity of narcotics recovered from his possession, would make out a case under S. 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against accused, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Seeks post- arrest in case F.I.R. No.372, dated 22-11-2002 under sections 9(b) & 6/9 of Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997.
2. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that on 22-11-2002 at about 8-45 p.m. 500 grams of Charas was recovered from the petitioner and he was arrested there and then. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 2-12-2002. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was never involved in any criminal case of the like nature and he was falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and that even otherwise his case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by urging that a considerable quantity of narcotics stuff was recovered from the petitioner and he did not deserve the concession of bail.
4. Admittedly the petitioner has no criminal history and was not involved in any criminal case of like nature. He does not have notoriety as drug pusher either. Being first offender and also for the reasons that quantity of narcotics stuff recovered from the possession of the petitioner would make out a case under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act against the petitioner, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./Z-29/L Bail granted.