2011 P Cr (PLP)
ALI REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 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 2011 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2011 P Cr (PLP) (ALI REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)
Possessing and trafficking narcotics
Lady co-accused had stated that accused who was driver, was not involved in the matter and had no knowledge about the narcotics
Such statements though were not admissible, but when Investigating Officer recorded the same, definite purpose behind that was to some extent that he was satisfied with regard to the innocence of accused
Accused and co-accused belonged to different areas and were not related to each other
Possibility was that accused might have taken co-accused to their destination because his car was hired
Accused was not supposed to search the luggage of the passengers
Whether accused was having conscious knowledge about the narcotics or not, was still open to debate
Let the prosecution connect accused with the crime at the trial; till then refusal of bail to accused would not be justifiable
Judgment & Decree
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.
Petitioner had been booked for crime under section 9(c), C.N.S. Act, Police Station Phandu, Peshawar, vide F.I.R. No. 855 dated 14-10-2009, thus, he seeks bail through the instant petition. Arguments heard and record perused. Brief Facts:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was a taxi driver and his taxi car was hired by the two co-accused for Rs.
500. However, while in transit they were intercepted by the police party headed by Noor Elahi S.H.O. of the Police Station and on search a shopping bag was recovered, lying in between the feet of Habibur Rehman co-accused and on search 10 packets of charas were recovered therefrom, weighing 20 kgs.
3. During the course of investigation, the statement of all the three accused were recorded, wherein the lady accused has squarely stated that the driver/petitioner was not involved and had no knowledge about the narcotics and similar is the statement of the petitioner. Although such statements are not admissible under the law of evidence, however, when the Investigating Officer has recorded the same, there was a definite purpose behind that, that he was to some extent at the moment satisfied with regard to the innocence of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner belongs to Bada Bher, Peshawar, while the two accused belong to Hangu Orakzai Agency. They are not related to each other and the possibility that the petitioner might have taken them to their destination, because his car was hired. He was not supposed to search the luggage of the passenger and whether he was having conscious knowledge about the narcotics or not is still open to debate. Let the prosecution connect him with the crime at the trial, but till then refusal of bail to him would not be justifiable. For the above stated reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 (four lac) with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./119/P Bail granted.