2010 SCMR 580 (PLP)
THE STATE/ANTI-NARCOTIC through Director-General Petitioner Versus RAFIQ AHMAD CHANNA — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 SCMR 580 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE/ANTI-NARCOTIC through Director-General Petitioner Versus RAFIQ AHMAD CHANNA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), While granting bail or otherwise, the Court is required to consider the following facts:, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 SCMR 580 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), While granting bail or otherwise, the Court is required to consider the following facts:, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 SCMR 580 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 SCMR 580 (PLP) (THE STATE/ANTI-NARCOTIC through Director-General Petitioner Versus RAFIQ AHMAD CHANNA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Saeed Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 5. In this case only 120 grams of cocaine were secured from the possession of the accused as such the offence would, fall under section 9(b) of C.N.S. Act. The maximum punishment under the said offence is 7 years. No Chemical Analyzer report has been filed nor the learned Advocate Supreme Court has been able to show us or in possession of such report in spite of our demand. There is no allegation of absconsion of the respondent nor such plea has been taken in the petition. Prima facie there is no question of tampering with the evidence as all the witnesses are officials. No record of previous involvement of similar offence committed by the respondent has been produced or alleged in the petition. In such circumstances, the learned High Court has exercised its discretion justly and fairly in granting bail.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order, dated 24-9-2009 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi passed in Criminal Bail Application No.1053 of 2009).
S. 497
Points to be considered by Court while dealing with bail application enumerated. (a) Whether there is or is not a reasonable ground for believing that the accused has committed the offence with which he is charged? (b) Whether the case requires further enquiry into the guilt of commission of non-bailable offence within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.? (c) Whether the accused is minor, woman, sick or infirm person? (d) The nature and gravity of the charge. (e) The severity or degree of the punishment which might follow in the circumstances of the case on conviction. (f) The danger of the accused absconding if he is released on bail. (g) The danger of witnesses being tampered with. (h) the danger of the alleged offence being continued or repeated. (i) The character, the means and standing of the accused. (j) An opportunity to the accused to prepare his defence. (k) The accused has already been in jail for a considerable period and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future at least. (l) Bail should never be withheld as a punishment.
S. 497(5)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Cancellation of bail, refusal of
Cocaine weighing only 120 grams having been secured from the possession of accused, the offence would fall under S.9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, entailing -maximum imprisonment for seven years
No Chemical Analyzer's report about the recovered material was available
Neither any allegation of abscondence was made against accused, nor any such plea had been taken in the petition
All the witnesses being officials, prima facie no question of tampering with the evidence would arise
Accused was not stated to be previously involved in a similar offence
High Court had justly and fairly exercised its discretion in granting bail to accused
Impugned order had neither violated any principle for grant of bail, nor the same was patently illegal or erroneous resulting in miscarriage of justice
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused accordingly.? State v. Khalid Sharif 2006 SCMR 1265 and Ehsan Akbar v. State 2007 SCMR 482 ref.
S. 497(5)
Considerations for cancellation of bail are different from those for grant of bail
Bail can be cancelled, if the order on the face of it is perverse, patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect resulting in miscarriage of justice or has been passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail.? State v. Khalid Sharif 2006 SCMR 1265 and Ehsan Akbar v. State 2007 SCMR 482 ref.
Judgment & Decree
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.
It is alleged that 120 grams of cocaine were secured from the possession of the respondent. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application but the learned High Court granted the same. The petitioner has filed the present petition for cancellation of bail.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. He has stated that the respondent has criminal background and that recovery of cocaine, which is dangerous to the life was made from his possession, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
3. After examining the provisions of section 51 of C.N.S. Act, 1997 particularly, subsection (2) wherein it is provided that if the offence is not punishable with death, the bail should not in normal circumstances be granted, unless in the opinion of the Court the case is fit for grant of bail against a substantial amount. While granting bail or otherwise, the Court is required to consider the following facts:
a)?? Whether there is or is not a reasonable ground for believing that the accused has committed the offence with which he is charged? b)?? Whether the case requires further enquiry into the guilt of commission of non-bailable offence within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.? c)?? Whether the accused is minor, woman, sick or infirm person? d)?? The nature and gravity of the charge. e)?? The severity or degree of the punishment which might follow in the circumstances of the case on conviction.??????? f)??? The danger of the accused absconding if he is released on bail. g)?? The danger of witnesses being tampered with. h)?? The danger of the alleged offence being continued or repeated. i)??? The character, the means and standing of the accused. j)??? An opportunity to the accused to prepare his defence. k)?? The accused has already been in jail for a considerable period and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future at least. l)??? Bail should never be withheld as a punishment.
5. In this case only 120 grams of cocaine were secured from the possession of the accused as such the offence would, fall under section 9(b) of C.N.S. Act. The maximum punishment under the said offence is 7 years. No Chemical Analyzer report has been filed nor the learned Advocate Supreme Court has been able to show us or in possession of such report in spite of our demand. There is no allegation of absconsion of the respondent nor such plea has been taken in the petition. Prima facie there is no question of tampering with the evidence as all the witnesses are officials. No record of previous involvement of similar offence committed by the respondent has been produced or alleged in the petition. In such circumstances, the learned High Court has exercised its discretion justly and fairly in granting bail.
6. This is a petition for cancellation of bail. It is settled law that considerations for cancellation of bail are different from the considerations for the grant of bail. The bail can be cancelled if the order on the face of it is perverse and has been passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail or it is patently illegal erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Reference is invited to State v. Khalid Sharif 2006 SCMR 1265 and Ehsan Akbar v. State 2007 SCMR 482.
7. None of the grounds for cancellation of bail are attracted, therefore, the petition is dismissed. Leave refused. N.H.Q./S-2/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.