2012 PLP 573 (SCMR)
JAMAL-UD-DIN alias ZUBAIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 573 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ejaz Afzal Khan and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | JAMAL-UD-DIN alias ZUBAIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 573 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 573 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 573 (SCMR) (JAMAL-UD-DIN alias ZUBAIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 2011.
- Ms. S. Naz Muhammadzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 31-10-2011 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1549 of 2011).
S.497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Maximum punishment, possibility of
Involving in other similar cases
Accused contended that Chars weighing 4 kilograms was recovered from path and not from his personal possession, therefore, there was no possibility of maximum sentence provided for the offence
Court while hearing petition for bail was not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by statute but the one which was likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case
Accused had been in jail for three months, yet commencement of his trial let alone its conclusion was not in sight, had also tilted scales of justice in favour of bail rather than jail
Involvement of accused in two other cases of similar nature would not come in the way of petitioner, so long as there was nothing on the record to show that accused had been convicted in any one of those
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and accused was released on bail. Ms. S. Naz Muhammadzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of judgment dated 31-10-2011 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby the petitioner was declined bail in case F.I.R. No.326 dated 9-10-2010 of Police Station Tal Hangu.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the incriminating substance was picked up from the path and not recovered from the personal possession of the petitioner; that even if it is presumed that it was recovered from his personal possession, he is not likely to be awarded maximum sentence provided by the Statute for four kilograms of charas and that he has been in jail ever since 6-9-2011, yet, commencement of his trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight, therefore, he deserves the concession of bail.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State argued that petitioner is a habitual offender as he has been charged in two other cases of similar nature, therefore he does not deserve concession of bail as it would encourage him to repeat the crime in future.
4. Without entering into the merits of the case, as the quantum of sentence has to be commensurate with the quantum of substance recovered, we doubt the petitioner can be awarded maximum sentence provided by the Statute. Needless to say that the Court while hearing, a petition for bail is not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the Statute but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The fact that petitioner has been in jail for three months yet commencement of his trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight, would also tilt the scales of justice in favour of bail rather than jail.
5. The argument that the petitioner has been involved in two other cases of similar nature would not come in the way of grant of petition so along as there is nothing on the record to show that he has been convicted in any one of them. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal and allow it. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.H./J-1/SC Bail allowed.