P L D 1998 Karachi 187 (PLP)
HUSSUNUDDIN and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1998 Karachi 187 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HUSSUNUDDIN and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1998 Karachi 187 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1998 Karachi 187 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1998 Karachi 187 (PLP) (HUSSUNUDDIN and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- We have heard the arguments of Mr. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Bahadur Ali Baloch, the Advocate for Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4-- Bail, grant of
Bhang whether falling within category of "intoxicants" or among "narcotics substances"
Bail application of accused was opposed by prosecution on ground that accused having been found in possession of 64 K.Gs. of Bhang
Judgment & Decree
1. Exemption allowed but subject to all just exceptions.
2. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid two applicants who have been challaned in the Sessions Court, Dadu to face trial for an offence punishable under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for having been found in possession of 64 k.gs. of the Bhang. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Bahadur Ali Baloch, the Advocate for Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the State. Contention of Mr. Madad Ali Shah is that accused have been challaned under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition Order and submitted that the facts of the case would warrant a conviction under Article 4 if the case of the prosecution is proved which provides an imprisonment for two years, or with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine. He further submitted that in view of the above the applicants are entitled to be released on bail as grant of bail in offences not punishable with imprisonment for life or ten years is a rule and refusal !s an exception. Mr. Bahadur Ali Baloach, the learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the offence of the applicants would fall within the purview of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act and looking to the quantity of the Bhang recovered, the accused would be liable to punishment of death or imprisonment for life or for ten years under section 9 clause (c) of the said Act of 1997 with the result that the case of the applicants would be hit by the embargo contained in section 497, Cr.P.C and bail cannot be granted to them. The contention of Mr. Bahadur Ali Baloach is not correct. The Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, has not included Bhang-in the definition of "Narcotics Substances", whereas Bhang is specifically included in' the word "intoxicants" as defined in the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has also referred to us to a case of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Bail Application No.550 of 1996 wherein Bhang (Haemp) was not found to fall within the definition of "Narcotics Substances" as defined in the above Act of 1997. Upon the above discussion, we are satisfied that this is a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail and accordingly, we allow bail to the applicants on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./H-44/K Bail granted.