2016 P Cr (PLP)
SADAM and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SADAM and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 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: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (SADAM and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Shakeel Ahmed and Saif-ur-Rehman Muqaddam for Petitioners.
- Additional Advocate General for the State.
- 3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General. In the case in hand, charas weighing 1000g has reportedly been recovered from petitioner Sadam. The quantity of the narcotics is huge and there is sufficient prima facie evidence, at least at this stage of the case, showing connection of petitioner Sadam with the occurrence. According to police record, prosecution has recovered narcotics from petitioner Sadam in presence of PWs to the recovery memo.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant
Huge quantity of charas weighing 1000 grams had reportedly been recovered from accused
Sufficient prima facie evidence showed connection of accused with occurrence
Prosecution had recovered narcotics from accused in presence of prosecution witnesses
Bail could not be granted to accused, in circumstances
Bail was declined.
S. 497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant
Police did not recover any narcotics from co-accused
Case between two accused persons was distinguishable
Bail was allowed to co-accused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
Petitioners, who are involved for the offences of sections 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, booked through FIR No.01/2016 of Police Station Singal, District Ghizer, seek their release on bail, through this petition. Previously, petitioner sought similar facility from the court of Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-Narcotics Ghizer, through B.A. No.03/16, who, through his order dated 01-03-2016, refused to grant the same facility.
2. Prosecution story of occurrence is that on the day of occurrence, police of Singal had shut up the road and were checking vehicles plying on the same. During such checking police noted that accused came on a motorcycle and turned the same into a street instead of continuing their journey towards Gahkuch. Police chased accused and arrested them. On physical search of the two accused, police recovered narcotics from accused Sadam while nothing was recovered from accused Anwar Aziz. Police completed the preliminary investigation and sent both petitioners to judicial lockup.
3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General. In the case in hand, charas weighing 1000g has reportedly been recovered from petitioner Sadam. The quantity of the narcotics is huge and there is sufficient prima facie evidence, at least at this stage of the case, showing connection of petitioner Sadam with the occurrence. According to police record, prosecution has recovered narcotics from petitioner Sadam in presence of PWs to the recovery memo.
4. So, at this stage of the case, we are not inclined to grant the bail facility to petitioner No.1 Sadam. Anyhow, police did not recover any narcotics from petitioner No.2, Anwar Aziz, therefore, the case between the two petitioners is distinguishable. We, therefore, allow bail facility to petitioner No.2, Anwar Aziz, who be released forthwith if not required in any other case, but that also subject to furnishing of personal bail bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Ghizer. Petition allowed to the extent of petitioner No.2, Anwar Aziz, but petition stands dismissed to the extent of petitioner No.1, Sadam. This file be consigned to record. HBT/97/GB Order accordingly.