2021 PLP 26 (YLRN)
SHER ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 26 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Waqar Ahmad Seth, C.J. |
| Parties | SHER ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 26 (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 2021 PLP 26 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Waqar Ahmad Seth, C.J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 26 (YLRN) (SHER ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Shabina Noor for Petitioner.
- Atif Ali Khan, A.A.G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), Ss. 9(d) & 11(b)
Possession of methamphetamine
Non-production of case property before the court
Scope
Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of Ice weighing 260 grams and two packets of heroin weighing 1146 grams and 1194 grams respectively
Prosecution case was that the accused was dealing in the business of narcotics and had intended to smuggle the same from his under construction house upon which police obtained search warrant from the court of law and raided the basement of his under construction house but the accused was found in his vehicle and the contraband was recovered from his personal possession as well as from the secret cavities of the vehicle and not from the basement of under construction house as mentioned in the FIR, which created doubts in the case
Local police had obtained search warrant from the ordinary Court of law and not from the Special Court
Contention of accused was that he was not the actual accused but another person having similar name was the actual accused, who had got criminal history of such like cases
Case property was not produced before the court of law at the time of obtaining police custody of the accused
Investigation of the case was complete and the accused was not required for further investigation
Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, C.J.
Petitioner, Sher Ali son of Noor Said, seeks bail in case FIR No. 147 dated 24.02.2020 under sections 9-D/11-B, CNSA read with section 15 Arms Act registered at Police Station Tangi, Charsadda. He has been refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda at Tangi vide order dated 03.03.2020; hence, the instant petition for the same purpose.
2. As per contents of FIR, on 24.02.2020 at 1520 hours, complainant Masood Khan, SHO reported the matter to the effect that there were some complaints being received from last many days that an international drug peddler/smuggler, namely, Sher Ali son of Noor Said dealing in business of narcotics in the shape of charas and ice and today, he would make an attempt at any time to smuggle the narcotics from his under construction house, upon which, he along with other police contingents, after obtaining search warrant from the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, raided the under construction house of the petitioner, who was found in his vehicle/Parado and on his personal search, Ice weighing 260 grams was recovered from his side pocket. On further search of petitioner, an unlicenced 9mm pistol bearing No. 1144600966 along with spare magazine containing 41 live rounds and from his front pocket, cash amount of Rs. 58000/- and 02 ATM cards were also recovered. On search of vehicle, one packet containing 1146 grams heroin from inside its right door whereas one packet containing heroin weighing 1194 grams from the cover of its left side was also recovered. Thus, the petitioner was arrested on the spot and a case under the above section of law was registered against him.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. As per version of prosecution, the petitioner is dealing business of narcotics and would smuggle the same from his under construction house, upon which, they obtained search warrant from the court of law and raided the basement of his under construction house but the petitioner was found in his vehicle/Parado and the contraband has been recovered from his personal possession as well as from the secret cavities of the vehicle and not from the basement of under construction house as mentioned in the FIR, which create doubts in the case and the same would be determined at the trial. Similarly, the local police obtained search warrant from ordinary court of law and not from the Special Court. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the petitioner has got no criminal history and the case registered against him is a concocted one because the actual accused is Sher Ali son of Jehanzeb, who has got criminal history of such like cases, however, the learned counsel in support of her contention, has annexed documents at page-l4 to 19 with the bail application, thus, this fact also requires further probe. Likewise, at the time of obtaining police custody, the case property has not been produced before the competent court of law because it is the bounden duty of the police to produce the same before the Court and the Court shall thoroughly check and scrutinize the same to be case property of the same case in which the accused is being produced before it. Moreover, petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation and keeping him behind the bars would serve no useful purpose. So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.
5. Resultantly, this bail application is allowed and the accused-petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) 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. In case, the petitioner failed to produce Fards equivalent to the bail bonds, he may produce two Government Officials for the purpose or he may deposit the bail bond amount in cash before the Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, who shall further deposit the same in Government Treasury. However, the petitioner in case of deposit of bail bond amount in cash, shall also furnish undertaking to the effect that he shall neither shift his abode to any other place nor shall go outside the city and will appear in the trial Court whenever received notice from the learned trial Court.
6. Above are the reasons of my short order of even date. SA/172/P Bail granted.