2020 PLP 19 (YLRN)
SARDARAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 19 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Syed Afsar Shah, J |
| Parties | SARDARAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 19 (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 2020 PLP 19 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Syed Afsar Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 19 (YLRN) (SARDARAZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Alam Khan and Kamran Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Saddique Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)
Bail granted to co-accused
Effect
Involvement of accused in other narcotic cases
Effect
In absence of recovery of contraband and conviction of accused, case of accused could not be bifurcated/distinguished from that of co-accused who had been granted bail
Case of accused, therefore, was one of further enquiry
No strong reason was available to withhold the concession of bail to the accused
Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.
Sardaraz Khan, the petitioner, who is charged in a case registered against him and others under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No.60, dated 22.01.2019 in Police Station Tort (Mardan), has sought his release on bail on the grounds that not only he has no hand in the commission of the crime as neither he is driver of the vehicle nor anything incriminating has been recovered from his possession but since sans him all the co-accused, who have been given the same role, have been released on bail by the Court below, vide orders dated 08.02.2019, therefore, he is also entitled to be released on bail on the principle of consistency, notwithstanding, merits of the case.
2. As against that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that there is a bay of difference between the case of the petitioner and that of his co-accused as not only he is habitual having criminal history in his credit of such like cases but the recovery was effected form the place, where he has been shown seated in the vehicle, therefore, he doesn't deserve the concession of bail, at-least, at this stage.
3. I have gone through the available record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
4. Whether on mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases, until and unless his conviction therein, and recovery of the contraband from the place, where he has allegedly been shown seated, his case can be bifurcated/ distinguished to that of the co-accused, who have been granted bail by the learned Court below, is the sole question, calling his case to be one of further inquiry and I, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, do not see any strong reason to withhold the concession of bail to him.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. SA/227/P Bail granted