1998 P Cr (PLP)
NAZAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 P Cr (PLP) (NAZAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Waris Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance (VI of 1995), S.9-C-- Bail, grant of
No independent witness from the public was associated with the recovery proceedings
Despite the positive report of the Chemical Examiner about the heroin allegedly recovered from the accused, his case was not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Accused was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and was in judicial lock-up for the last one year and six months
Ball was allowed to accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Waris Khan for Petitioner. Qazi Ahmed Naeem Qureshi for the State. Sardar Muhammad Siddique Khan for A.N.F. The petitioner through the present petition has sought post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.33, dated 16-7-1995 under section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 at Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued for bail by emphasising that the petitioner has falsely and maliciously been implicated in the instant case on the basis of wholly false and fabricated version which is apparent from the bare reading of the F.I.R. In this respect, it was pointed out that no independent witness was associated with the alleged recovery of 130 grams of heroin which, therefore, raised very serious doubts about the bona fide of the said recovery. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the said contention by stating that the complainant had no enmity with the petitioner to falsely involve him in the instant case.
3. However, a further perusal of the F.I.R. reveals the fact that only 12 grams of heroin out of the alleged recovery of 130 grams sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report and that even a positive report in that respect shall not take the case of the petitioner out of the ambit of subsection (b) of section 9 of 8 the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1995 under which the punishment for possessing more than 10 grams of any narcotic drug psychotropic substance or controlled substance may extend to seven years but shall not be less than three years and shall also be liable to fine and as such, the case of the petitioner is not hit by prohibitory clause. It was also confirmed on c behalf of the State that the petitioner is neither previous convict nor a hardened criminal and is no longer required by the police and that the petitioner is in judicial custody for almost one year and six months.
4. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby allowed ball in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./N-69/L Bail allowed.