2004 P Cr (PLP)
FAYYAZ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAYYAZ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (FAYYAZ ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)--Bail, grant of
Recovery of Charas, though had been shown from accused an hour earlier to lodging of F.I.R., but names of Mashirs, who were stated to be police personnel had not been disclosed in the F.I.R.
Such lapse on the part of prosecution had created reasonable doubt about the authenticity of Mashirnama of recovery
Benefit of such lapse could be extended to accused even at bail stage
Case against accused needing further inquiry, he was entitled for bail.
Judgment & Decree
Zafar A. Rajput for Applicant. Anwar Ansari for the State. Applicant Fayyaz is facing charge under section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in Crime No.7 of 2003 Police Station Excise Police Circle Tando Muhammad Khan. According to the prosecution story on 10-12-2003 at 5-30 p.m. in presence of two police Mashirs 1000 grams of Charas and Rs.50 were recovered on the personal search of the applicant and such F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 6-30 p.m. by Inspector Jameel Ahmed Rajput of Excise Police Circle, Tando Muhammad Khan. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime and the Charas has been foisted upon him. He urged that in case the recovery of Charas was made from the applicant an hour before lodging of F.I.R. then in normal course names of the Mashirs should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. This fact clearly creates doubt in the case of prosecution that the Mashirnama of recovery was prepared subsequent to the lodging of F.I.R. Learned counsel further contends that the offence for which the applicant has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for bail. Mr. Anwar Ansari learned State Counsel did not dispute that the names of two police Mashirs have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. However, relying on the case of Afzal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCMR 573, he contended that even for the offences where the punishment is up to 7 years, bail can be refused in appropriate cases. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel and perused the case record which confirms that though the recovery of Charas has been shown from the applicant an hour earlier to the lodging of F.I.R. but the names of Mashirs, who are stated to be police personnel, have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. Such lapse on the part of the prosecution creates reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the Mashirnama of recovery, and benefit of such lapse can be extended to applicant even at bail stage. In our view p the case of applicant thus, needs further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for bail. In view of the above, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./F-6/K Bail granted.