2009 PLP 1490 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NAEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1490 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1490 (MLD)?
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 1490 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1490 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NAEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Respondent.
- 2. As against that Mr. Munir Ahmed Bhatti Advocate appearing on behalf of State argues that the driver being custodian of the vehicle cannot be heard saying that he was not in conscious possession of the incriminating substance recovered from the vehicle and that he being prima facie connected with a crime attracting prohibitory clause does not deserve concession of bail that too when the menace of narcotics is likely to envelop the entire society in its fold like a wild fire, if not checked with sternness.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3/4
Accused who was driving the vehicle from which incriminating substance was allegedly recovered, after seeing the Police made no effort to decamp from the scene of occurrence; while one of co-accused:-not only tried but succeeded in making his escape good from the spot
Question, whether accused could be . saddled with conscious possession of the incriminating substance recovered from the vehicle in cartons, was one calling for further inquiry
Fact that accused had been in jail for almost four months, but commencement of his trial was not insight, would also add in "favour of his bail rather than jail
Even attraction of prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. would be doubtful in the case when accused was likely to be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the statute for possessing 5 kgs of charas as it was the quantum of sentence always invariably followed the quantum of substance recovered
Accused was directed to be released on bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.
The petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him and two others under section 9(c) CNSA r/w Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.555, dated 27-5-2009 in Police Station Cantt: Abbottabad, seeks his release on bail on the ground that in the absence of any direct evidence on the record, the incriminating substance recovered from the vehicle, he was driving at the time of occurrence, cannot be fastened on him and that his co-accused who are similarly placed and positioned have since been released on bail.
2. As against that Mr. Munir Ahmed Bhatti Advocate appearing on behalf of State argues that the driver being custodian of the vehicle cannot be heard saying that he was not in conscious possession of the incriminating substance recovered from the vehicle and that he being prima facie connected with a crime attracting prohibitory clause does not deserve concession of bail that too when the menace of narcotics is likely to envelop the entire society in its fold like a wild fire, if not checked with sternness.
3. I have gone through the record and considered the submissions made at the Bar.
4. When petitioner after seeing the police made no effort to decamp from the scene of occurrence and one of the co-accused not only tried but succeeded in making his escape good from the spot; the question whether petitioner can be saddled with conscious possession of the incriminating substance recovered from the vehicle in cartons is one calling for further enquiry. The fact that petitioner has been in jail for almost four months and yet commencement of his trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight would also add in favour of bail rather than jail. Even attraction of prohibitory clause would be doubtful in this case when the petitioner is likely to be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the statute for possession 5 k.g. of charas as it is too settled that the quantum of sentence always invariably follows the quantum of substance recovered.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. H.B.T./180/P. Bail granted.