1999 PLP 2331 (YLR)
KHALIQ NOOR- Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2331 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | KHALIQ NOOR- Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2331 (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 1999 PLP 2331 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2331 (YLR) (KHALIQ NOOR- Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Amin Khattak for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1999.
- 4. Mr. Muhammad Amin Khattak, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Kh. Azhar Rashid, learned Assistant Advocate-General, for State present and heard. Record of the case perused.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 51
Huge quantity of "Charas" having been recovered from the accused, offence allegedly committed by him was punishable with death or imprisonment for life and bail could not be granted to him in view of the provisions of S.51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Question of the accused being unaware of the presence of the contraband "Charas" in the secret cavities of the vehicle could be determined at the trial
Reasonable grounds did not exit for believing the accused not guilty of the offence charged with
Trial Court had given quite convincing reasons for not granting bail to accused and the discretion exercised by .it judiciously did not call for any interference by High Court
Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State 1968 SCMR 1168 rel. Khawaja Azhar Rasheed, Asst. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
2. The petitioner after his arrest moved an application before the Judge, Special Court, Kohat (Malik Mujtaba Ahmad) for bail who rejected the same Vide: his order, dated 14-1-1999.
3. The petitioner has now approached this Court for the redress of his grievance alleging therein that he is innocent, falsely charged and, therefore, entitled to be released on bail.
4. Mr. Muhammad Amin Khattak, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Kh. Azhar Rashid, learned Assistant Advocate-General, for State present and heard. Record of the case perused.
5. The punishment provided for the offence mentioned above is either death or life imprisonment as the quantity of the narcotics recovered (69 kilograms of Charas) from the car of the petitioner exceeds far more than one kilogram. The petitioner cannot be, therefore, released on bail as laid down in section 51 of the said Act. The same is reproduced as under:
"Section
51. No bail to be granted in respect of certain offences:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 496 and 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), bail shall not be granted to an accused person charged under any other law relating to narcotics where the offence is punishable with death. (2) In the case of other offence punishable under this Act, bail shall not be normally granted unless the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, for the grant of bail and against the security of a substantial amount."
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about the presence of the contraband "Charas" in the secret cavities of the vehicle, has no substance: It shall be looked into at the time of trial.
7. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the available record, it is not at all possible for me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds do exist for believing that the petitioner has not committed the offence' charged with. The reasons given by the Special Judge for not granting bail to the petitioner are quite convincing and I do not see any justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by him judiciously. Reliance is placed on a case titled Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State reported as 1968 Supreme Court Monthly Review 1968, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Court below from which he now seeks leave to appeal. On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C., were amply fulfilled in this section. The petition is dismissed."
8. In the circumstances, this petition for bail is without any force and is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./386/P Bail refused.