2020 P Cr (PLP)
IFTIKHAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 P Cr (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 2020 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 P Cr (PLP) (IFTIKHAR AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Ullah for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate-General for the State.
- 3. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in many cases of similar nature. The petitioner was convicted in a case of narcotic. The petitioner was on bail in a case of similar nature, when repeated the offence. The petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(b)
Involvement in cases of similar nature
Scope
Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 280 grams of charas
Accused had remained involved in the cases of similar nature
Accused was on bail when he repeated the offence
Accused had misused the concession of bail
Case of petitioner though did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., yet his case fell within its exceptions, where bail was not granted to those accused persons who repeated the offence during bail
Accused was not entitled for concession of bail, which was declined accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner has been booked for the offence under section 9(b) of C.N.S.A., 1997 for having been in possession of 280 grams of charas, vide FIR No. 19/2019 dated 06-02-2019, registered under section 9(b) at Police Station Skardu.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is false and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The offence carries the punishment of only 07 years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation.
3. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in many cases of similar nature. The petitioner was convicted in a case of narcotic. The petitioner was on bail in a case of similar nature, when repeated the offence. The petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Heard in detail and the record of the case perused in presence of the parties. The record reveals that the petitioner remained previously involved in the cases of similar nature. The petitioner was on bail, when he repeated the offence. The petitioner mis-used the concession of bail. The case of the petitioner though does not falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., yet it falls within the exceptions, when bail is not granted to those accused, who repeat the offence during bail. The reliance is placed on PLD 1995 SC 34.
5. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail, which is declined accordingly. SA/44-GB Bail declined.