2022 PLP 840 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 840 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munib Akhtar and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 840 (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 2022 PLP 840 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munib Akhtar and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 840 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dil Muhammad Alizai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 2.8.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court Multan Bench in Cr. Misc. Nos. 3156-B, 3157-B, 2596-B, 2597-B and 3801-B of 2021)
S. 497
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 51
Recovery of 56.4 kgs of cannabis concealed in cavities of a truck
Considerable cache comprising 56.4 kgs cannabis was concealed in different cavities of the truck, discovered pursuant to piecemeal disclosures by the accused persons through elaborate investigate efforts involving steel cutters and, thus, it was humanly not possible for the police contingent to conclude the exercise in one go; they proceeded with the registration of cases as and when the recoveries became available and this certainly did not allow, within the limited space of tentative assessment, to entertain any manner of doubt for imposition of such a huge cache as in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there was no smarter way to better systematize the conclusion of investigative proceedings
Material collected coupled with the statements of the witnesses clearly attracted the mischief of S. 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, standing as an impediment to release of accused persons on bail
Petition or leave to appeal was dismissed, and accused persons were refused bail. Ch. M. Sarwar Sidhu, Additional P.G. Punjab with Imran, DSP, Shoukat, SI, Rehmat Ali, Excise SI for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Consequent upon a single transaction with registration of different criminal cases, bail petitions wherefrom, were decided by the High Court through orders of even date, bear a common thread and, thus, are being decided through this single order.
2. On a tip off, Shoukat Hayat, SI of Police Station Doulat Gate Multan intercepted a Mini Truck bearing Registration No.TKZ/301 with Muhammad Yousaf and Ehsan Ullah, petitioners on board, on 25.6.2020; at first, 5 packets of cannabis weighing 6000 grams were found in the cabin; besides the contraband a sum of Rs. 105,000/- was secured vide inventory. As the investigation progressed, Ehsan Ullah was found to have impersonated himself as Muhammad Younas, a subterfuge rectified forthwith. This followed by multiple disclosures by the accused leading to seizure of other consignments, surreptitiously concealed in different cavities of the vehicle as well as beneath the cargo. It was through intensive effort that the police finally succeeded with the help of electric cutters to discover meticulously concealed cache, the last after the vehicle had already moved to the precincts of Police Station Lohari Gate. It is in this backdrop that as many as five First Information Reports were recorded to encompass the whole episode, a complexity, ingeniously highlighted by the learned counsel in his attempt to project multiple recoveries from the single vehicle at two police stations as a sham exercise.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. A considerable cache comprising 56.400 kg. cannabis was concealed in different cavities, discovered pursuant to piecemeal disclosures through elaborate investigative efforts involving steel cutters and, thus, it was humanly not possible for the police contingent to conclude the exercise in one go; they proceeded with the registration of cases as and when the recoveries became available and this certainly does not allow, within the limited space of tentative assessment, to entertain any manner of doubt for imposition of such a huge cache as in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there was no smarter way to better systematize the conclusion of investigative proceedings. Material collected coupled with the statements of the witnesses clearly attracts the mischief of section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, standing insurmountably in impediment to petitioners' release on bail. Petitions fail. Leave declined. MWA/M-3/SC Bail refused.