2018 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Incharge FIA PS No.14 Gilgit — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Incharge FIA PS No.14 Gilgit — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 P Cr (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 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Incharge FIA PS No.14 Gilgit — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamal Hussain for Petitioner.
- Syed Dilda Hussain, AD Legal FIA Gilgit for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss.23 & 27
Possessing of spurious drugs
Accused had been charged for violation of S.23 of the Drugs Act, 1976 which carried the punishment for not less than 5 years with fine
Punishment was not to be more than 10 years with fine of Rs.5,00000 (Five Lac)
While deciding bail application, the minimum sentence of the offence had to be kept in view in order to determine, whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clauses of S.497, Cr.P.C., or not
Section 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976 whereunder accused had been booked, had been restricted to the extent of export, import or manufacturing for sale or selling any spurious drug
Mere possession of a spurious drug had not been made punishable under S.27 of Drugs Act, 1976
Offence, accused was charged with, did not fall within the realm of provisions contained in subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Case for grant of bail having been made out, accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in the case FIR No.10 of 2017 dated 19.04.2017 registered under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976.
2. The precise allegations contained in the FIR, recorded on the complaint of Mr. Ubaidullah Khan Drug Inspector Gilgit are that on the fateful day the complaint pursuant to a tip-off conducted a raid on "Ziaqa" hotel situated at Punial Road near Imamia Mosque Gilgit and arrested the petitioner and recovered a huge quantity of unregistered drugs from Room No. 105 of the Hotel. After recovery of the unregistered drug (detail is mentioned in FIR) the complainant lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner. After completion of investigations the petitioner was committed to judicial lock up.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
4. The petitioner has been charged for violation of section 23 of Drug Act 1976, which carries the punishment, which shall not be less than 5 years with a fine of Rs. 500000/- (Five lac) however, the punishment should not be more than 10 years with the fine of Rs.500000/-(Five Lac).
5. I am of the view that while deciding a bail application, the minimum sentence of an offence has to be kept in view in order to determine whether the offence falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. or not.
6. As discussed above the petitioner has been booked for violation of section 23 of Drug Act, 1976. Bare reading of section 23 shows that it has been restricted to the extent of export, import or manufacturing for sale or selling any spurious drug. Mere possession of a spurious drug has not been made punishable under section 27 of Drugs Act, 1976. The offences, the petitioner is charged with, does not fall within the realm of provisions as contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I am of the opinion that a case for grant of bail has been made out.
7. Let me mention here that 'I' am deliberately withholding comments regarding applicability of certain provisions of Drugs Act, 1976 to avoid prejudice to either parry.
8. For what has been discussed, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lac) with two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court at Gilgit. HBT/176/GB Bail granted.