2000 PLP 1837 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL DARZI — Petitioner Versus STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1837 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui,. Sh. Ijaz Nisar |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL DARZI — Petitioner Versus STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1837 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1837 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui,. Sh. Ijaz Nisar.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1837 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL DARZI — Petitioner Versus STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dates of hearing: 1st and.2nd March, 1999.
- Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitoner.
- 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State. The learned Additional Advocate- General states that the trial of the petitioner could not conclude due to the pendency of large number of cases before the trial Court and requests for the fixation of a time limit for the conclusion of the trial. He, however, concedes that in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.391-L of 1998, titled Gulzaman v. The State, there is no bar on the grant of bail in appropriate case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 29-9-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Crl. M. No. 1178-B/1998).
S. 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 51
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)
Accused was allegedly found in possession of 1500 gms. of heroin
Contention of accused was that case against him was based on absolutely, false allegations and was an outcome of his father's enmity with the Police and that the recovery was fake
Accused also took the plea of his long detention for grant of bail
Supreme Court declined the grant of bail keeping in view the huge quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from the accused and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of the order of refusal to grant the bail by Supreme Court. Gulzaman v. The State Criminal Petition No.391-L of 1998 ref. Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitoner. Altaf Elahi Sh., Addl. A.-G., Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 29-9-1998, passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1178-B of 1998.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Afzal Darzi, the petitioner herein, was arrested on 29-11-1997 in Case F.I.R. No.382 of 1997 under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for being found in possession of 1500 grams of heroin. He applied for the grant of bail to the High Court, but the learned Judges dismissed his bail application on the ground that section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, barred the grant of bail. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended that the case against the petitioner is based on absolutely false allegations and is outcome of his father's enmity with the police and that the recovery is fake. His long detention is also urged as a ground for the grant of bail.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State. The learned Additional Advocate- General states that the trial of the petitioner could not conclude due to the pendency of large number of cases before the trial Court and requests for the fixation of a time limit for the conclusion of the trial. He, however, concedes that in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.391-L of 1998, titled Gulzaman v. The State, there is no bar on the grant of bail in appropriate case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. 5. ,. Keeping in view the huge quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the fact that the statutory period is not yet over, we do not feel persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner. A However, we direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner may repeat his bail application. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. M.B.A./M-83/S Orders accordingly.