2018 P Cr (PLP)
RAHEEL ABBAS — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAHEEL ABBAS — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 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 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (RAHEEL ABBAS — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)
Possessing and trafficking narcotics
Case against accused had been challaned and accused was no more required for investigation
Case of prosecution being based upon the evidence of Police Officials, no question would arise for tampering their evidence at the hands of accused
Case of prosecution rested upon the evidence of Police Officials, their evidence was required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial as to whether offence as alleged in the FIR was committed by accused in a manner as narrated by the complainant or otherwise
Nothing was on record to show that accused was previous convict or had been arrested in other case of similar nature in the past
Complainant (Sub-Inspector of Police), had acted in the case as Investigating Officer
Evidence of the complainant, who himself conducted investigation, though was admissible, but for the safe administration of justice, he should have entrusted the investigation to some other Police Officer, so that nobody could raise any finger on the investigation
Trial Court was yet to determine as to whether investigation carried out by the complainant who himself had acted as Investigating Officer of the case, could safely be relied upon or otherwise
Accused had already sat in the B. Com. (Part-I) examination and relevant documents were on record
Examination was scheduled to be held
If at such a stage bail was refused, career of accused would be spoiled
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.
Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail from the trial court in crime No.133 of 2017 registered under section 9(c), C.N.S. Act 1997 of police station Kazi Ahmed Shaheed Benazirabad. Now applicant/accused Raheel Abbas son of Ghulam Abbas is seeking his release on bail through instant bail application.
2. The allegations of prosecution against present accused as per FIR are that on 29.7.2017 complainant SIP Moula Bux Khaskheli along with his staff was on patrolling. During patrolling at about 1000 hours when he reached at Sawai Rahu stop via Nawabshah road where they saw present accused was coming having plastic shopper in his hand who on seeing police tried to run away but they apprehended him and recovered 2500-grams charas along with cash amount of Rs.50/- from the possession of applicant/accused in presence of mashirs.
3. It is stated by learned counsel for applicant/accused that applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further pointed out that at the time of incident which took place in a busy place but no private person was associated as mashir of recovery. He further added that applicant/accused is student of B Com. Part-1 and two persons have sworn their affidavits that he was taken away by the police of police station B-Section Nawabshah and involved him in this case, He further submits that applicant/accused is behind the bars, he has also filed Enrolment Card and Examination form of B.Com Part-1 and his examination has been scheduled on 06.10.2017, if at this stage the bail to applicant/accused is refused, the applicant/accused would be seriously prejudiced.
4. Conversely learned DDPP for the state has opposed the grant of bail to applicant/accused. He submits that public persons are not cooperative with the police. He pointed out that since no person from the public was seen hence complainant made his subordinate as mashir. He further submits that huge quantity of 2500-grams of charas was recovered from the possession of applicant/accused although the applicant/accused has no enmity with complainant party.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted position that case has been challaned, applicant/accused is no more required for investigation and admittedly the case of prosecution based upon the evidence of police officials, therefore, no question does arise for tampering their evidence at the hands of applicant/accused. Since whole the case of prosecution rest upon the evidence of police officials, therefore, their evidence is required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether offence as alleged in the FIR, allegedly committed by the applicant/accused in a fashion as narrated by the complainant or otherwise. There is nothing on record to show that applicant/accused is previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past.
7. It appears from the record that complainant SIP Moula Bux Khaskheli has also acted in this case as Investigating Officer. Although the evidence of the complainant who himself conducted investigation is also admissible in evidence yet for the safe administration of justice, he should have entrusted the evidence to some other police officer so that nobody raise any finger on the investigation, therefore, on this ground and also it is yet to be determined by the trial court whether investigation carried out by the complainant who himself acted as Investigating Officer of the case can safely be relied upon or otherwise.
8. It also appears that applicant/accused has already submitted the examination of B.Com part-1 in the University and such documents are on record and has not been disputed by learned DDPP for the State and examination is scheduled to be held on 06.10.2017 and in this case, if at this stage bail is refused, whole career of applicant/accused would be spoiled.
9. In view of above, I allow this bail application and admit the applicant/accused on bail after furnishing his surety in the sum of Rs.150,000/- (Rupees One lacy Fifty thousand only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
10. Before parting with the order, I would like to make it clear that observations if any, made in this order, is tentative in nature and shall not affect the merits of the case. HBT/R-2/Sindh Bail granted.