P L D 2016 Sindh 378 (PLP)
MOMIN KHAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2016 Sindh 378 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MOMIN KHAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2016 Sindh 378 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2016 Sindh 378 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2016 Sindh 378 (PLP) (MOMIN KHAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9 (b)
Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs etc.
Bail could be declined in case of recovery of 990 grams of Charas
One thousand grams of Charas from one accused and one hundred grams of Charas along with ten grams of heroin were alleged to have been recovered from the other accused
Narcotics although had been recovered from the accused persons only in presence of Mashirs/police witnesses, but no enmity had been shown by the accused with the Anti-Narcotics Force for their false implication
Accused were narcotic traffickers and had been apprehended from the street while being in possession of the narcotics
Offence in question, being heinous in nature, considered as offence against the society at large; therefore, even if the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C, the accused were not entitled to the grant of bail
Bail could be declined even in case where the recovered Charas was 990 grams
Bail application was dismissed accordingly.
S. 25
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103
Mode of making search and arrest
Search to be made in presence of witnesses
Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. has been excluded in narcotic cases in view of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
S. 2(s)
Warcotic drug'
Scope
No bifurcation or specification existed in Control of Narcotic Substances Act. 1997 in respect of narcotics as to Charas or Heroin. [p. 380] E
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.
By way of this Bail Application the Applicant/Accused seeks Post- arrest Bail, after rejection of Applicant's Bail Application by the learned Judge, Special Court-I (CNS) Karachi, in FIR No. 42/2015, under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, P.S., A.N.F-II, Muhammad Ali Society, Korangi, Karachi. Briefly the Prosecution story as per FIR is that the Complainant/Inspector, on 11.6.2015, after spy information, that one Jahanzaib Darwesh through his agents openly runs narcotics den/business, reached at spot/street and apprehended 1) Applicant Momin Khan, who handed over Charas 1000 gram and 2) Asif Khan, who handed over charas of 100 gram and Heroin Powder of 40 gram. The same were secured, weighed and sealed on spot in presence of Police Mashirs,' as.private persons avoided to associate as Mashirs due to fear of enmity with Narcotic Traffickers. The Chemical Examiner confirmed the same as Charas and Heroin Powder, but the Charas, recovered from Applicant weighed as 990 gram, vide Chemical Examiner's Report. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the Applicant, and learned Special Prosecutor, ANF, who has opposed the grant of Bail in the matter. I have observed as under:- a) That the Applicant has been apprehended with Narcotics/Charas of 990 gram on spot from the street in presence of Mashirs and no enmity has been shown by the Applicant with ANF ' Police for false implication. Reliance is placed on 2007 YLR 3105 (DB); b) That in view of Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Section 103 Cr.P.C, has been excluded in the Narcotic Cases. Reliance is placed on 2008 SCMR 1254 an PLD 1997 SC 408; c) That the recovery of Charas of 990 gram from the Applicant/Accused shows that the Applicant is Narcotic Trafficker and apprehend from the street; d) That in view of the same, the offence is heinous one and considered as offence against the Society at large and even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.P.C, the Applicant could no be entitled for Bail. Reliance is placed on 2003 SCMR 573 and 2015 SCMR 1077; e) That Section 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provides Prohibition of Possession of Narcotic, Drugs etc., and punishment for its violation is provided in Section 9 of the said Act and as such the case of the Applicant fails under Sections 6 and 9(b) of the said Act, as recovered Charas is 990 gram and there is no bifurcation or specification in respect of Narcotic, as to Charas or Heroin, in said Act, and even otherwise in the case of Nadeem Ashraf reported in 2013 SCMR 1538, 420 gram, heroin were recovered and bail declined; f) That the case laws i.e. 2014 PCr.LJ 427, 2014 YLR 639 and 2014 PCr.LJ 1335, are not of any help to the Applicant's case, in view of latest pronouncement of apex Court, reported in 2015 SCMR 1077 and 2008 SCMR 1254. g) That at bail stage keeping in view only the quantity of Narcotic as per Section 9(b) of CNS Act, 1997, without going through the fitness of the case for grant of bail as per Section 51(2) CNS Act, would not be proper. In view of the above I am of the considered opinion that the case of the Applicant/Accused is not fit for the grant of Bail and the Applicant/Accused not entitled for the concession of Bail. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed. The above observations are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice either of the party during Trial. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the Proceedings/Trial. SL/M-58/Sindh Bail declined.