YLR 2009

2009 PLP 45 (YLR)

AKHTAR JAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Bail Application No. 610 of 2008, decided on 25th July, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Alam Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 45 (YLR)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Muhammad Alam Khan, J
Parties AKHTAR JAN — Applicant 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 2009 PLP 45 (YLR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 45 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Alam Khan, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 45 (YLR) (AKHTAR JAN — Applicant 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

  • Date of hearing: 25th July, 2008.
  • 3. In support of the petition, Messrs. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Murad Ali Khan, Advocates learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not proved the direct and conscious possession of the petitioner. It was also argued that the alleged interception of the car and recovery of narcotic was made on Jamrud Road, which is a busy road and is always being plied by heavy traffic but no one from the locality has been associated with the recovery proceedings. It was also submitted that the investigation in this case is complete and the presence of the petitioner is no longer required and thus the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
  • 4. On the other hand, Miss Shabana Tajik, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the accused has been directly charged in the F.I.R. and 200 grams heroin has been recovered from the car, which was being driven by the accused-petitioner. He is not entitled to be released on bail. It was also argued that the mere fact that the offence does not come within the embargo of section 497, Cr.P.C. will not make the petitioner entitled to the concession of bail.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

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

Bail, grant of--Accused was charged under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, maximum sentence for which was 7 years--Investigation in the case was complete and accused was no longer required for investigation

Punishment for offence against accused was not hit by the embargo laid in S.497, Cr. P. C.

Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. M. Ibrahim Khan and Murad Ali Khan for the Petitioner. Miss Shabana Tajik for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.

Having failed to secure bail from the Court of Additional District Judge-VI, Peshawar vide order dated 7-6-2008, Akhtar Jan son of Malang Jan petitioner, charge in case F. I. R, No. 465 dated 21-5-2008, under section 9 (b), CNSA 1997, Police Station Hayatabad, Peshawar has come to this Court for his post-arrest bail.

2. Briefly narrated the facts as gleaned from F.I.R. are that on 21-5-2008 Shujaat Ali Khan S.-I. Incharge Police Post Industrial Area along with other police officials intercepted Motor Car No.BA-3367 Peshawar Suzuki Mehran coming from Jamrud side to Peshawar. On checking the car, two hundred grams of heroin was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle, out of which one gram was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the remaining 199 grams was sealed in separate parcels and the petitioner was arrested.

3. In support of the petition, Messrs. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Murad Ali Khan, Advocates learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not proved the direct and conscious possession of the petitioner. It was also argued that the alleged interception of the car and recovery of narcotic was made on Jamrud Road, which is a busy road and is always being plied by heavy traffic but no one from the locality has been associated with the recovery proceedings. It was also submitted that the investigation in this case is complete and the presence of the petitioner is no longer required and thus the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, Miss Shabana Tajik, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the accused has been directly charged in the F.I.R. and 200 grams heroin has been recovered from the car, which was being driven by the accused-petitioner. He is not entitled to be released on bail. It was also argued that the mere fact that the offence does not come within the embargo of section 497, Cr.P.C. will not make the petitioner entitled to the concession of bail.

5. I have given my due consideration to the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the accused-petitioner is charged under section 9 (b) CNSA. The maximum sentence for which is 7 years. The investigation in this case is complete and the petitioner is no longer required for investigation. The punishment for the offence is not hit by the embargo laid in section 497, Cr.P.C. In view of the facts narrated above, I accept this petition and order the release of the accused-petitioner on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two hundred thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial/Duty Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./187/P Bail granted.