2020 PLP 1354 (YLR)
FAHEEM AHMED — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1354 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J |
| Parties | FAHEEM AHMED — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1354 (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 2020 PLP 1354 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1354 (YLR) (FAHEEM AHMED — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---At the very outset, learned advocate for the applicant states that applicant/accused Faheem Ahmed has allegedly been found in possession of 30 packets of Gutka, PANPARAG2000 and 10 packets of PANPARAG ONE total 40 packets weighing 9000 grams (9 kg), moreover the learned counsel submits that the basic ingredients of section 337-J, P.P.C. are lacking in this case, as neither the victim/customer to whom the applicant/accused was purchasing the material, which has been shown in the case nor any purchaser/customer was found nearby to him while purchasing/selling the alleged Gutka, which are the main ingredients of section 337-J, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions has relied upon the Order dated 18.11.2019, passed by the Single Bench of this Court at Hyderabad in Criminal Bail Application No.S-1123 of 2019. He therefore, submits that in view of above, case against the applicant/accused requires further enquiry and he prays that the applicant accused may be released on bail.
- Heard arguments of the learned advocate for the applicant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have perused the material available on record. Admittedly, no person from the public or society made any complaint against the applicant nor any person has been produced to whom the applicant allegedly administered the alleged Panparag or Gutka, even not a single person was found nearby to him while purchasing the same from the applicant. Therefore, basic ingredients for application of Section 337-J, P.P.C. are lacking in the case in hand. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground for withholding the concession of bail to an accused. In the circumstances, reference can be held from the case of Hafiz Muhammad Shehzad v. The State (2019 MLD 1588). Moreover, the prosecution has to prove / establish the charge of section 337-J, P.P.C. against the applicant after recording evidence of the parties and the Trial Court has to determine whether section 337-J, P.P.C. has rightly been applied or otherwise. It is settled principle of administration of criminal justice that law cannot be stretched upon in favour of the prosecution, particularly at bail stage, as every accused is presumed to be blue eyed boy of the law until and unless he may be found guilty of the charge. In the circumstances and in view of the above, I am of the considered view that case against the applicant requires further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, instant criminal bail application is hereby allowed, the applicant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 269, 270 & 337-J
Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, causing hurt by means of a poison
Recovery of 9000 grams Panparag and Gutka
No person from the public or society made any complaint against the accused nor any person was produced to whom the accused allegedly administered the alleged Panparag or Gutka
Not a single person was found nearby to him while purchasing the same from the accused
Basic ingredients for application of section 337-J, P.P.C, were lacking in the case
Mere heinousness of offence was no ground for withholding the concession of bail to accused
Law could not be stretched upon in favour of the prosecution, particularly at bail stage, as every accused was presumed to be blue eyed boy of the law until and unless he was found guilty of the charge
Case against the accused required further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro and Muhammad Ali Memon for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.
At the very outset, learned advocate for the applicant states that applicant/accused Faheem Ahmed has allegedly been found in possession of 30 packets of Gutka, PANPARAG2000 and 10 packets of PANPARAG ONE total 40 packets weighing 9000 grams (9 kg), moreover the learned counsel submits that the basic ingredients of section 337-J, P.P.C. are lacking in this case, as neither the victim/customer to whom the applicant/accused was purchasing the material, which has been shown in the case nor any purchaser/customer was found nearby to him while purchasing/selling the alleged Gutka, which are the main ingredients of section 337-J, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions has relied upon the Order dated 18.11.2019, passed by the Single Bench of this Court at Hyderabad in Criminal Bail Application No.S-1123 of 2019. He therefore, submits that in view of above, case against the applicant/accused requires further enquiry and he prays that the applicant accused may be released on bail. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the bail application, however, could not controvert the legal controversy. Heard arguments of the learned advocate for the applicant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have perused the material available on record. Admittedly, no person from the public or society made any complaint against the applicant nor any person has been produced to whom the applicant allegedly administered the alleged Panparag or Gutka, even not a single person was found nearby to him while purchasing the same from the applicant. Therefore, basic ingredients for application of Section 337-J, P.P.C. are lacking in the case in hand. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground for withholding the concession of bail to an accused. In the circumstances, reference can be held from the case of Hafiz Muhammad Shehzad v. The State (2019 MLD 1588). Moreover, the prosecution has to prove / establish the charge of section 337-J, P.P.C. against the applicant after recording evidence of the parties and the Trial Court has to determine whether section 337-J, P.P.C. has rightly been applied or otherwise. It is settled principle of administration of criminal justice that law cannot be stretched upon in favour of the prosecution, particularly at bail stage, as every accused is presumed to be blue eyed boy of the law until and unless he may be found guilty of the charge. In the circumstances and in view of the above, I am of the considered view that case against the applicant requires further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, instant criminal bail application is hereby allowed, the applicant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. ADN/F-5/Sindh Bail allowed.