YLRN 2017

2017 PLP 36 (YLRN)

JIHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Cr.M. B.A. No.1904-P of 2016, decided on 30th August, 2016.
Honorable Judges
Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 36 (YLRN)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, J
Parties JIHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 36 (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 2017 PLP 36 (YLRN)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 36 (YLRN) (JIHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Syed Muzahir Hussain for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)

Possession and trafficking of narcotic drug/charas

Bail, refusal of

Accused was caught by Police in possession of narcotic drug/ charas while driving a car and accompanied by three other persons

Trial Court dismissed bail application of accused

Accused was caught at the time of recovery of contraband material

Punishment for such offence fell under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Forensic report disclosed the recovered stuff as contraband

Rule of consistancy was not applicable in the case of accused as co-accused released on bail, was just a passenger of the car

Prima facie, accused seemed to be connected with the crime

Bail petition was dismissed accordingly. [Paras. 4, 5, 6 & 8 of the judgment] Mumrez Gul for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.

This is an application for the grant of post arrest bail of accused petitioner Jihad Ali who is implicated in case FIR No. 278 dated 04.04.2016, charged under section 9C CNSA registered at P.S Cantt Kohat. Prior to the application for the grant of seeking the same relief was dismissed by the learned ASJ-IV, Kohat vide order dated 18.04.2016.

2. As is reflected from the contents of the report that while the police officials of Cantt Kohat were checking the vehicles near Kaghazai Check Post. There the petitioner driving Suzuki RPT-3271 who was accompanied by three other persons namely Rehan Ali, Mir Jana and Jawad Ali when stopped for checking from the driver seat on search 10 packets charas weighing each 1200 grams total of which on weighment found 12000 grams kept secretly behind the driver seat from the body of the said Suzuki were recovered, out of which 5/5 grams charas gardah were separated for the chemical analysis.

3. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG for the State.

4. It is as observed that the petitioner being the driver of the Suzuki from which the contraband material was recovered it at exactly at the time of recovery was driven by him. Now the question would come whether the petitioner was of conscious knowledge of the contraband charas which was secretly placed in the body of the said vehicle. This query according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the vehicle is a public transport the driver is not responsible for any material supposedly implanted egressed or ingressed. The petitioner intermediary detachment or nexus to his ignorance cannot be brushed aside. Further advancing his words it is said that it is factual controversy and so is a matter of further inquiry.

5. It is a case of recovery of huge contraband material. The quantity of which has exceeded than the limit in the event when the trial is conducted and the recovery from the vehicle in question and the presence of the accused petitioner being driver of this vehicle are proved will definitely invite punishment which may figure in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The FSL report is also in positive, which further corroborates that the recovered stuff is a contraband material of the type mentioned in the recovery memo.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accompanying accused Rehan Ali has been let free by the judgment contained in Bail Application No. 1458-P/2016; therefore, on the ground of consistency the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. The wisdom contained in the esteem verdict reveal that the accompanying accused Rehan Ali has no doubt been released on bail, but the role of the petitioner and that of Rehan Ali co-accused is quite different. Rehan Ali co-accused is said to be a passenger while this petitioner is the driver, who can be saddled with conscious knowledge of the contraband charas recovered from the Suzuki vehicle when too the recovery is from the back seat of the driver seat.

7. Hon'ble the Apex Court after all in consideration of this menace to be against the humanity and public at large in title Sucha Gul v. The State Cr. PLA No. 15 of 2015 upholding the judgment of Peshawar High Court, dated 08.12.2011 passed in Cr. M.B.A. No. 1716-P/2014 where even the recovery was of 4000 grams charas, whereas in this case the recovery is almost triple times of the same recovery where by the bail was refused.

8. It is thought for that the petitioner is prima facie one way or the other connected with the crime, when the prosecution on the basis of evidence under the investigation will lead to believe of his implication.

9. Suffice it to say that the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner 2010 YLR 701, 2010 YLR 284, 2012 YLR 314 and 2010 YLR 306 in all the respective cases reported in on perusal would reveal that quite different facts are in existence than if compared in this case; therefore, hardly been beneficial for the grant of bail.

10. Needless to say that while this petition is dismissed, when the trial is commenced the learned trial court shall not be influenced from the findings in this order and shall dispose off the case on the evidence to be led in the trial. WA/321/P Petition dismissed.