2009 PLP 100 (YLR)
IMRAN ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 100 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Roshan Essani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | IMRAN ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 100 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 100 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Roshan Essani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 100 (YLR) (IMRAN ALI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 9(b)---Absence of accused---Forfeiture of bail bond due to absence---Applicant/accused on relevant date of hearing when case was called, was absent and his bail bond was forfeited and non-bailable warrant was ordered against him as well as notice to his surety---Medical certificate annexed with application of accused had revealed that on the date of hearing the son of accused aged 3 years, was ill and due to his serious condition, he was treated in hospital and accused was attending him---Absence of accused was neither wilful nor deliberate, but it was due to unavoidable circumstances, which were beyond his control---Impugned order was set aside, accused was allowed to remain on same bail and same surety.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
By this Cr. Revision Application, the applicant/accused has assailed the order of Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances Hyderabad dated 26-8-2003 whereby his bail was cancelled, and N.B.W was ordered against, him as well as notice to his surety. We have heard Mr. Aijaz Shaikh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused and Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned Additional A.-G. The latter does not support the impugned order. The perusal of material placed on record shows that the applicant/accused is facing trial before Special Judge C.N.S Hyderabad in a Case under Section 9-B (CNS) Act, 1997 which arose out of F.I.R No.33 of 2002 of Police - Station Tando Yousuf. On the relevant date of hearing i.e. 26-8-2003 when the case was called, applicant/accused was absent therefore his bail bond was forfeited and N.B.W. was ordered against him as well as notice to his surety. The medical certificate annexed with application reveals that on the date of hearing i.e. 26-8-2003 the son of applicant namely Ali Asghar aged about 3 years was ill and due to his serious condition he was treated in hospital upto 28-8-2003 and applicant was attending him. It appears that the absence of applicant/accused was neither wilful nor deliberate but it was due to unavoidable circumstances which were beyond his control. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The applicant/accused is allowed to remain on same bail and same surety. The Cr. Revision Application stands lands disposed of along with listed application. H.B.T./I-26/K Application allowed.