2006 PLP 339 (MLD)
HIDAYATULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 339 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HIDAYATULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 339 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 339 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 339 (MLD) (HIDAYATULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Afgan Khattak for Petitioner.
- 3. Mr. Sher Afgan Khattak, Advocate for the petitioner, in support of the bail application, vehemently contended that the petitioner has been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion; that the material collected from the premises is owned by co-accused Rovaid Jan, Jawad Khan and Fawad Khan who are relatives of the petitioner; that the so-called drugs do not fall within the 'definition provided in section 3 (v) (g) of Drugs Act, 1976; that the material collected is a herbal product and the Drugs Inspector or Provincial Quality Control Board has no lawful authority to conduct raid or make report to the police and that the F.I.R. has been lodged without taking samples and obtaining chemical report from the laboratory.
- 4. As against that Mr. Wasim Tariq, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application maintaining that the concession of bail has been refused to the petitioner for valid reasons and the impugned order is not open to legitimate exception.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss.23-1(A)(i), (vii), (b)(c) & 27(a)(b)
Accused who was in jail ever since his arrest, was stated to be a government servant
Offence with which accused had been charged, was not punishable with imprisonment for more than 10 years
Case being of further inquiry into guilt of accused within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was granted bail.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.
Through this petition. Hidayatullah, petitioner, statedly an employee of Health Department, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1098 registered at Police Station Faqir Abad, District Peshawar on 19-10-2005 for an offence under sections 23-1(A)(i) (vii) (b)(c) & 27 (a)(b) Drugs Act, 1976.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail on refusal of the same by learned Chairman, Drug Court, Peshawar by his order dated 25-10-2005.
3. Mr. Sher Afgan Khattak, Advocate for the petitioner, in support of the bail application, vehemently contended that the petitioner has been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion; that the material collected from the premises is owned by co-accused Rovaid Jan, Jawad Khan and Fawad Khan who are relatives of the petitioner; that the so-called drugs do not fall within the 'definition provided in section 3 (v) (g) of Drugs Act, 1976; that the material collected is a herbal product and the Drugs Inspector or Provincial Quality Control Board has no lawful authority to conduct raid or make report to the police and that the F.I.R. has been lodged without taking samples and obtaining chemical report from the laboratory.
4. As against that Mr. Wasim Tariq, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application maintaining that the concession of bail has been refused to the petitioner for valid reasons and the impugned order is not open to legitimate exception.
5. Be that as it may, without highlighting merits of the case, I find that the petitioner is in jail ever since his arrest on 19-10-2005. The petitioner is stated to be a government servant, which fact has not been denied by the opposite side. .The offence with which the petitioner has been charged is not punishable with imprisonment more than 10 years. A This Court agrees with what has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a case of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. The application is accepted and the petitioner is granted bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 18-11-2005. H.B.T./576/P Bail granted.