YLRN 2018

2018 PLP 97 (YLRN)

SHABIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Decided Date
Cr. Misc. B.A. No.167 of 2017, decided on 8th November, 2017.
Honorable Judges
Malik Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Umer, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2018 PLP 97 (YLRN)
Forum / Court Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Bench Members Malik Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Umer, JJ
Parties SHABIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 97 (YLRN)?

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 PLP 97 (YLRN)?

The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Umer, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 97 (YLRN) (SHABIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Rais Khan for Petitioner.
  • Dy. Advocate General for the State.
  • 4. The petition was fixed for preliminary hearing on 04-10-2017 but the learned defence counsel did not appear and the petition was re-listed for 18-10-2017. On 18-10-2017 the petition was admitted for regular hearing and notice was issued to Dy. Advocate General for 08-11-2017.
  • 6. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the offences under section CNSA-1997 and section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are not bailable and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497 Cr.P.C. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contented that the raid on the house of petitioner was conducted after obtaining search warrant from the Magistrate. Further that the petitioner is a previously convicted person as evident from the conviction recorded by a Judicial Magistrate on 07-06-2014. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner, who does not deserve the concession of bail.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)

Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss. 13, 20 & 65

Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4

Possession of narcotic drugs, firearms and explosives

House of accused was raided after obtaining search warrants from Magistrate and a huge quantity of charas, crackers, one pistol and some cartridges of Small Machine Gun were recovered from possession of accused

Accused was a habitual offender and was involved in such like cases, his release on bail would frustrate the principles for grant of bail

Tentative assessment of material collected during investigation suggested that a prima facie case was established against the accused

Bail was refused accordingly. [Para. 7 of the judgment] Dy. Advocate General for the State.

Judgment & Decree

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The petitioner has been booked for the offences under sections 9(c) CNSA-1997, 13 A.O. and 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908 vide FIR No.18/17 of Police Station Aliabad Hunza.

2. The brief facts of the case have been highlighted in para 2 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Judge Hunza dated 16-09-2017, which is reproduced as under:-- "Brief fact of the case as disclosed in the FIR by the complainant Ibar Hussain SI/SHO, Police Station City Aliabad that he received a spy information that Shabbir Hussain , while keeping huge quantity of charas at his residence and shop and selling the same. On the said information he obtaining permission for raid at the house and shop of the accused, and on search, from the ceiling of the roof of his residential house recovered 04 packets charas and cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- and beneath the bed .30 bore pistol along with 18 live cartridges, 27 live cartridges of SMG and one cotton crackers. On weighing charas 2520 gram found which was taken into possession".

3. After completion of investigation the petitioner was committed to judicial custody. The petitioner applied for post arrest bail, which was refused to him vide judgment/order dated 16-09-2017. Being aggrieved from the said judgment/order the petitioner has come to this Court for concession of bail.

4. The petition was fixed for preliminary hearing on 04-10-2017 but the learned defence counsel did not appear and the petition was re-listed for 18-10-2017. On 18-10-2017 the petition was admitted for regular hearing and notice was issued to Dy. Advocate General for 08-11-2017.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to some ill wishers. The learned counsel further contended that the specification of charas has not been mentioned as to whether the same was charas "garda" or charas "pukhta", which makes the case of the petitioner as one of further inquiry. The learned counsel further contended that offence under section 13 A.O. is bailable and the provisions of section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are not attracted. The challan of the case has been submitted after a period of 17 days, which vitiates the whole proceedings of the prosecution. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is first offender, who may be released on bail, as his detention will not serve any useful purpose.

6. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the offences under section CNSA-1997 and section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 are not bailable and falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497 Cr.P.C. The learned Dy. Advocate General further contented that the raid on the house of petitioner was conducted after obtaining search warrant from the Magistrate. Further that the petitioner is a previously convicted person as evident from the conviction recorded by a Judicial Magistrate on 07-06-2014. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner, who does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. As evident from the record, the house of the petitioner was raided after obtaining search warrant from the Ilaqa Magistrate and a huge quantity of charas, crackers, one pistol and some cartridges of SMG were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. As the record reveals the petitioner is a habitual offender and has been involved in such like cases in the near past. His release on bail will frustrate the principles for grant of bail in such like cases.

8. A tentative assessment of the material collected during investigation suggests that a prima-facie case is established against the petitioner.

9. The petition in hand is meritless, which is dismissed accordingly. WA/227/GB Bail refused.