2012 PLP 1032 (MLD)
RAWAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1032 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAWAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1032 (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 2012 PLP 1032 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1032 (MLD) (RAWAL — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)
Accused was arrested from a thickly populated area, allegedly being in possession of 1025 grams of charas, but no private witness was associated at the time of the arrest
Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded operation of S. 103, Cr.P.C. but since arrest and recovery was made by police on prior information, police should have arranged private person from vicinity to act as witness for arrest and recovery
Sample of 10 grams sent to Chemical Examiner appeared to be meagre quantity and case was also a border-line case
Prosecution's case appeared to be doubtful and false implication of accused could not be ruled out
Accused's case required further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. and accordingly he was admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.
Applicant is booked in Crime No.128 of 2011 of Police Station Hussainabad, Hyderabad under section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act, 1997. In the first place, applicant applied for bail before the learned Special Judge, CNS Hyderabad, who dismissed the bail application per order dated 21-10-2011. Against aforesaid order, present bail application has been filed. Facts of the prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. are that complainant on receipt of spy information, apprehended the present applicant along with other police officials. After arrest, he disclosed his name as also from his possession; a bag was recovered containing 4 slabs of charas, which were subsequently weighed 1025 grams and 10 grams of charas from all four slabs were taken and sent to chemical examiner and remaining 1015 grams of charas were sealed separately. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the arrest of applicant took place in the thickly populated area, but no private mashir was associated at the time of his arrest. He says that no private person was associated for the alleged recovery. He further says that case pertains to borderline and it is yet to be decided as to whether case of the applicant falls under section 9(b) or 9(c) of CNS Act. He says that applicant has been falsely implicated in this crime. He further says that applicant is labourer working in a cotton Mill and he has been involved first time by the police and no other case is pending or he is booked in other crime. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. has opposed the grant of bail and has supported the order passed by learned trial Court. From the tentative assessment of the record, it appears that arrest of the applicant was effected in a thickly populated area and alleged recovery was also made by the police, but no private witness was associated at the time of his arrest and recovery. No doubt, section 25 of CNS Act exclude the operation of section 103, Cr.PC. but in all fairness, when arrest and recovery is being made by the police on prior information, police should have arranged private person from vicinity to act as mashir/witness for arrest and recovery. Secondly, sample, obtained by the police of 10 grams from four slabs of charas appears to be a meagre quantity and this case otherwise, seems to be borderline case. Even otherwise, case of prosecution appears to be doubtful and false implication of the applicant can not be ruled out at this stage, therefore, the case of present applicant requires further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail, on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and PR bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. M.W.A./R-31/K Bail granted.