2006 PLP 1132 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1132 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Raza Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1132 (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 2006 PLP 1132 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Raza Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1132 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saif-ur-Rehman Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th June, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(a)
Bail, grant of-Recovery of 20 grams heroin
Accused was not a previous convict and had suffered eight months' detention
Accused though was charged under Art.3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, but his case fell within S.9(a) of overriding Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Accused was granted bail in circumstances. 2000 PCr.LJ 122 ref. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Marwat for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Muhammad Ramzan petitioner has been arrested on 31-10-2004 in F.I.R. No.541 Police Station Tank for having the possession of 20 grams heroin from his personal possession on body search.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that application of Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was not proper as the Control of Narcotic Substances Act had an overriding effect and in a case 2000 PCr.LJ 122 this Court had released a person having the possession of 37 grams of heroin. It was argued that the recovery was made in a thickly-populated area and the local witnesses were not associated.
3. The learned State counsel resisted the petition on the ground that the FSL report was in positive and heroin being most dangerous narcotics disentitles a person found in possession thereof to the extraordinary concession of bail.
4. The examination of the record shows that the petitioner was charged under Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 whereas the case fell within section 9(a) of the overriding Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The petitioner is not a previous convict and he has already suffered detention for more than eight months.
5. Hence the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate. S.A.K./48/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.