2003 PLP 1637 (MLD)
NOOR ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1637 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal trial, (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1637 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal trial, (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1637 (MLD)?
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: 2003 PLP 1637 (MLD) (NOOR ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yaoob Khan Murwat for Petitioner.
- 3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate-General relying on the case of Muhammad 4fzal Darzi v. State (2000 SCMR 1837) and the case of Fida Jan v. The State (2001 SCMR 36) contended that the accused in the cited cases were refused bail respectively irrespective of the quantity recovered from them.
- 4. It is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence that while awarding the sentence, the Court has to take into account the various circumstances of the case so that the punishment should be proportionate to the offence with which an accused is charged with. The quantity exceeds by margin of 1000 grams in the instant case. The Court can while deciding the bail application can take into account the sentence likely to be awarded as well as the other circumstances of the case. Perusal of the record does not show that the petitioner is a previous convict or he is previously involved in such-like cases. In case Fida Jan v. State (supra), 26 Kgs. of Charas was recovered from the petitioner who was allegedly trafficking and similarly in the other case cited by the learned Deputy Advocate-General 1500 grams of heroin was recovered. Certainly heroin is much more dangerous and valuable than the Charas.
Headnotes / Summary
Punishment should be proportionate to offence of which accused was charged.
S.497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9-- Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4-- Bail
Recovery of 1100 gms. of Charas
Such quantity exceeded by margin of 1000 gins.
Court while deciding bail application could take into account sentence likely to be awarded and other circumstances of the case
Accused was neither previous convict nor involved in such-like cases previously- --Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
S.497
Court could take into account sentence likely to be awarded and other circumstances of case.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Afzal Darzi v. State 2000 SCMR 1837 and Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCMR 36 distinguished. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S.497
Court could take into account sentence likely to be awarded and other circumstances of case. Muhammad Yaoob Khan Murwat for Petitioner. Shoukat Hayat Khan for the State Date of hearing: 24th September, 2002. Petitioner Noor Ali Khan was allegedly found in possession of Plastic bag containing 1100 grams of Charas by Muhammad Tahir Khan, S.H.O. on 27-6-2002 at 2 p.m. and accordingly case under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was registered against him, vide F.I.R. No.251 dated 27-6-2002. He was refused bail by the Courts below and he has approached this Court for his release on bail.
2. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Marwat, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of his client was of border line between clause 'B' and 'C' of section 9 of the C.N.S.A. According to him, in the given circumstances there is nothing to show that he is previous convict etc., the chances of awarding maximum punishment are also lacking.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate-General relying on the case of Muhammad 4fzal Darzi v. State (2000 SCMR 1837) and the case of Fida Jan v. The State (2001 SCMR 36) contended that the accused in the cited cases were refused bail respectively irrespective of the quantity recovered from them.
4. It is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence that while awarding the sentence, the Court has to take into account the various circumstances of the case so that the punishment should be proportionate to the offence with which an accused is charged with. The quantity exceeds by margin of 1000 grams in the instant case. The Court can while deciding the bail application can take into account the sentence likely to be awarded as well as the other circumstances of the case. Perusal of the record does not show that the petitioner is a previous convict or he is previously involved in such-like cases. In case Fida Jan v. State (supra), 26 Kgs. of Charas was recovered from the petitioner who was allegedly trafficking and similarly in the other case cited by the learned Deputy Advocate-General 1500 grams of heroin was recovered. Certainly heroin is much more dangerous and valuable than the Charas.
5. For the reasons stated above, the petition for bail is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rs Three lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who shall see that the sureties belong to a respectable family and men of means/local. S.A.K./855/P Bail granted.