2010 PLP 614 (YLR)
Mst. RUKHSANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 614 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Raza Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. RUKHSANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 614 (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 2010 PLP 614 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Raza Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 614 (YLR) (Mst. RUKHSANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Alam Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing 25th July 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)
Contentions that the raiding Police party had the prior information, but there was no arrangement of the lady Police constable with the team for the search of accused lady and that accused lady was having a suckling baby, were devoid of force, because the baby was allegedly not present with accused at the time of her arrest and the baby was also about 2-1/2 years old, so the term "suckling baby" was not attracted to that case and no benefit could be extended to accused on that count
Accused lady having been charged for carrying huge quantity of Charas, the minor procedural irregularity, would not negate the effect of such a huge recovery--Quantity as recovered from possession of the accused could have devastating effect on the society
Case of accused for her release on bail did not justify on merits, in circumstances
However, in accordance with the latest amendment, the extraordinary relief had been extended to the women prisoners
Accused lady had to be released on bail except in the cases where the punishment was prescribed as death or imprisonment upto ten years and that too in a restricted categories of terrorism, financial corruption and murder
Offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were not excluded from the said provision
Nonetheless, in the wisdom of the legislature, since no exception had been specified in the said proviso for not extending the benefit for the offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite the severe punishment of death and imprisonment for life under S.9(c) of said Act for the quantity of 10 Kgs. and above, accused, had to be released on bail pursuant to the amendment in Cr.P.C.
Newly added proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C. extended the facility to the offences under all the laws for the time being in force and that Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, could not be deemed to be an exception
Bail was granted. Muhammad Ayub Khan, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--The petitioner, Mst. Rukhsana, has been charged in F.I.R. No.312 dated 28-4-2006 of Police Station Gul Bahar for having been found in possession of a bag containing 11 packets of charas weighing one kilogram each and thus she was arrested under section 9(c) CNSA. Her applications for bail were not entertained by the two Courts. Hence this petition.
2. The arguments that the raiding police party had the prior information but there was no arrangements of the lady police constable with the team for the search of the petitioner-lady and that she was also having a suckling baby are devoid of force because the baby was allegedly not present with the petitioner at the time of her arrest and the baby was also about 2-1/2 yeas old so the term "suckling baby" is not attracted to this case and no benefit can be extended to the petitioner on this count. She has been charged for carrying huge quantity of 11 kilograms Charas and the minor procedural irregularities does not negate the effect of such a huge recovery. The quantity as recovered from her possession could have devastating effect on the society. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for her release on bail did not justify on merits.
3. However, in accordance with the latest amendment, the extra ordinary relief has been extended to the women prisoners. They have to be released on bail except in the cases where the punishment is' prescribed as death or imprisonment upon ten years and that to in a restricted categories of terrorism, financial corruption and murder. The offences under the CNSA are not excluded from the said proviso. Such an unqualified concession shall affect the women-folk more seriously because thereby they are likely to be used as carriers and so scared position of female citizens will be tainted and the ladies who were generally expected to be good mothers for the bright future of the nation, shall be used as drug traffickers in a pursuit exactly damaging for the entire society. nonetheless, in the wisdom of the legislature, since no exception has been specified in the said provision for not extending the benefit for the offences under the CNSA, therefore, deposit the serve punishment of death and imprisonment for life under section 9(c) CNSA for the quantity of 10 kilograms and above, the petitioner has to be released on bail pursuant to the latest amendment in the Cr.P.C.
4. The argument that section 497, Cr.P.C. has been specifically excluded from the operation of CNSA shall not be of much advantage to the prosecution, because the newly added proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. extended the facility to the offences under the laws for the time being in force and this the CNSA could not bell deemed to be an exception. Consequently this application is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. two lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./3/P Bail granted.