2010 PLP 2811 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 2811 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Anwaarul Haq and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 2811 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 2811 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Anwaarul Haq and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 2811 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jafar Mehmood Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)
No one was apprehended from the car being used for the transportation of the narcotics
Many persons were in the car, when it was intercepted by the Police party at the picket point
None of the prosecution witness had stated that accused was found on the driving seat of the car
Nothing was recovered from direct personal possession of the accused
Case of accused was not distinguishable from his co-accused who had been granted bail by the court
Rule of consistency also had come into play in his case
Accused was behind the bars since 16-10-2009 and previous non convict
Case of accused was an appropriate one to release him on bail
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Chaudhry Jamshed Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State/respondent No.1 with Muhammad Asghar, S.-I./I.O. with police record. Abdullah Inspector/S. H.O. and Muhammad Azam, S.-I./complainant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Tufail petitioner by way of the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 1185 registered under section 9(c) of the C.N.S.A., 1997 with Police Station, Factory Area, Lahore on 11-10-2009.
2. The facts of the case were recorded by us in our earlier order dated 8-3-2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2140-B of 2010 of his co-accused Muhammad Tariq. We, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that it is clear from the narration of the F.I.R. that no one was apprehended from the car being used for the transportation of the narcotics. It is also clear from the same that there were many persons in the car, when it was intercepted by the police party at the picket point.
4. There is no statement of any P.W. that he was found on the driving seat of that car. It is also every body's case that nothing was recovered from his direct personal possession.
5. It may be mentioned here that the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has submitted before us that as per the Case Diary No. 18, recorded on 11-2-2010, by Muhammad Asghar, S.-I./I.O. in the investigation, it has been found that in fact he was driving the car and was the associate of Farooq @ Farooqi, the main person in the crime. He has also admitted that such is the opinion of the said investigating officer. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has read out before us the said case diary. It starts like this that during his "ﺨﻔﻴﻪﻮﺍﻋﻼﻧﻴﻪﺘﻔﺘﻴﺶﺴﮯ" such position has come to the surface. Such opinion of the investigating officer is open to question to be seen at trial.
6. However, it would be relevant to mention here that it is well-settled proposition in criminal-administration of justice that ipse dixit of police is not binding upon court.
7. We, thus find that his case is not distinguishable from his co-accused Tariq, who has been granted bail by this Court vide the aforesaid order. The rule of consis tency, thus also comes into play in his case.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars since 16.10.2009 and a previous non-convict. We, therefore, in such circumstances, find it an appropriate case to release him on bail. In this view of the matter, we accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousands only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-236/L Bail granted.