PCRLJ 2008

2008 P Cr (PLP)

ALTAF HUSSAIN alias ALTAF — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2008-May-27
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties ALTAF HUSSAIN alias ALTAF — Applicant 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 2008 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 2008 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (ALTAF HUSSAIN alias ALTAF — Applicant 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

  • It is contended by the Advocate for the applicant that to give the colour of legality to illegal act of the police the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in this matter. It is further contended that in the main case F.I.R. No.161 of 2007 trial Court has already granted bail to the applicant. It is a case of prosecution that Charas in shape of pieces was recovered but the sample was not taken from each piece and it has still not been determined whether the pieces of Charas were actually the Charas or otherwise. It is further contended that F.I.R. of main case under sections 353 and. 324, P.P.C. and under section 13(3) Arms Ordinance discloses that when the police party entered into the quarter, they found that two persons were sitting on different cots and on seeing police party one of the accused took out a pistol and fired at police party. It was also contended by the learned counsel for applicant that it is also mentioned in F.I.R. No.161 of 2007, that the accused armed with pistol disclosed his name as Kamran Ali Abro. His main contention seems to be that total 1000 grams of Charas were not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant but it was found ling on the cot. The learned counsel vehemently relied on the settled principle of law as laid down in the following reported judgments:--

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

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

Bail, grant of

Accused had already been granted bail in the main case

"Charas" according to prosecution case had been recovered in shape of pieces, but sample was not taken from each piece and still it was not determined whether the pieces of material recovered from accused were actually "Charas" or not

When police party entered into the quarter they had found two persons sitting on different cots and main contention was that total 1000 grams of "Charas" was not recovered from the exclusive possession of accused, which was lying on the cot

Case of accused required further probe regarding his guilt

Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, J.

This is a bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant in connection with Crime No.163 of 2007, Police Station Darri, Larkana under section 9(b) C.N.S. Act. It is claimed that the applicant/accused on 11-12-2007, at 1400 hours was arrested in Crime No.161 of 2007, under sections 353 and 324 P.P.C. and under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance while possessing one parcel containing Charas in shape of pieces measuring 250 grams sealed parcel and one parcel containing Charas weighting 750 grams. It is contended by the Advocate for the applicant that to give the colour of legality to illegal act of the police the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in this matter. It is further contended that in the main case F.I.R. No.161 of 2007 trial Court has already granted bail to the applicant. It is a case of prosecution that Charas in shape of pieces was recovered but the sample was not taken from each piece and it has still not been determined whether the pieces of Charas were actually the Charas or otherwise. It is further contended that F.I.R. of main case under sections 353 and. 324, P.P.C. and under section 13(3) Arms Ordinance discloses that when the police party entered into the quarter, they found that two persons were sitting on different cots and on seeing police party one of the accused took out a pistol and fired at police party. It was also contended by the learned counsel for applicant that it is also mentioned in F.I.R. No.161 of 2007, that the accused armed with pistol disclosed his name as Kamran Ali Abro. His main contention seems to be that total 1000 grams of Charas were not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant but it was found ling on the cot. The learned counsel vehemently relied on the settled principle of law as laid down in the following reported judgments:-- Parvez Ahmed v. The State PLD 2008 Kar. 16, wherein my brother Mr. Justice Abdur Rahman Faruq Pirzada granted bail wherein 20 kilograms Charas was involved and bail was granted on the ground that out of 20 kilograms, only 250 grams was sent for chemical examination. In another case reported as 2003 PCr.LJ 540, a Division Bench of this Court granted bail in similar case, wherein one kilogram of Charas was found in the car police also found five kilograms of bhang which was claimed by one Wazir Ali to be kept by him. In another case reported as 2Q06 MLD 1961, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Azizullah M. Memon and Mr. Justice Sajad Ali Shah granted bail wherein 20 kilograms Charas was involved and it was held by the Honourable Division Bench that the Charas allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant but the number of patties/plates was not mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in Mashirnama. It was further observed that the quantity of 250 grams Charas was taken out from entire material for the purpose of chemical analysis. In another case reported as 2006 PCr.LJ 1080, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Mr. Justice Azizullah M. Memon also granted bail in a case, wherein one kilogram Charas was involved and entire quantity was not sent for chemical analysis and weighment etc. to confirm whether or not the weight of allegedly recovered Charas was one kilogram or less. Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgi, State Counsel under the circumstances is unable to support the prosecution case and conceded and given no objection for grant of bail. For the foregoing reasons this is a case of further enquiry entitling the applicant/accused to concession of bail. The applicant shall be released on bail provided he submits surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 to that satisfaction of the trial Court along with P.R. bond in the like amount. Bail application is disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./A-65/K Bail allowed.