2018 PLP 19 (YLRN)
EHSANULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 19 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Sahib Khan, C.J. and Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | EHSANULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 19 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 19 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Sahib Khan, C.J. and Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 19 (YLRN) (EHSANULLAH — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Faisal Khan for Petitioner.
- Malik Sherbaz, Deputy Advocate-General for the State.
- 4. The learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was caught red handed while travelling in an NCP car bearing No. NCP DMR-01-1646 and a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from his possession. Per Dy. Advocate General there is a strong prima facie case established against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c)
Border line case between S.9(b) & S.9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Without commenting on merits/ demerits, Court, in the present case, was of opinion that only 1000 grams of "Charas" (narcotic) was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused which would fall under S.9(b) and not under S.9(c) of the Act, 1997
Sentence for the offence under S.9(b) was only seven years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.
Bail was granted accordingly. [Para. 5 of the judgment] Malik Sherbaz, Deputy Advocate-General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner was booked for the offences under section 9(c) CNSA 1997 vide FIR No.05/2017 Police Station Pari Bunglow District Gilgit on the complaint of HC Mir Subhan.
2. The petitioner applied for bail in the Court of the learned Special Judge Gilgit, which was refused vide order dated 15-03-2017 and being not satisfied from the order of learned Special Judge Gilgit the petitioner has approached to this Court for concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is false and the petitioner has been booked maliciously. The learned counsel contended that the FIR of the instant case has been lodged by the local Police which by itself is illegal and without lawful authority. The learned counsel further contended that the quantity of alleged Narcotic recovered from the petitioner has been shown 1000 gram thus the case of petitioner falls under section 9(b) CNSA 1997 which even otherwise entails 7 years punishment and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of 497(1), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2008 PCr.LJ 1447 (Karachi), 2008 PCr.LJ 1449 (Peshawar) and 2014 YLR 632 (Sindh) in support of his contention.
4. The learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was caught red handed while travelling in an NCP car bearing No. NCP DMR-01-1646 and a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from his possession. Per Dy. Advocate General there is a strong prima facie case established against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, we are of the opinion that only 1000 gram of "Charas" alleged to have been 'recovered from the possession of the petitioner which apparently falls under section 9(b) of CNSA 1997 and not under section 9(c) CNSA 1997. The punishment provided for the offences under section 9 (b) CNSA 1997 is only 7 years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.P.C. therefore, we allow bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lac) with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge Gilgit.