| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1638 2016 SLD 1638 2016 PLJ 589 |
Peshawar High Court
Crl. M.B.A. No. 1640-P of 2014, decided on 6.1.2015. Date of hearing: 6.1.2015.
MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.
Mr. Noor Alam Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Muazzam Butt, Advocate for ANF.
Crl. M.B.A. No. 1640-P of 2014, decided on 6.1.2015. Date of hearing: 6.1.2015.
MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.
Mr. Noor Alam Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Muazzam Butt, Advocate for ANF.
SAHIB GUL
VS
STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)--Bail allowed--Recovery of charas-garda of 5 kg--Whethercharas garda was recovered or charas pukhta as in murasila and recovery memo. charas garda--Determination--It is settled law that quantum of sentence has to commensurate with the quantum of substance--Petitioner can be awarded maximum sentence provided by statute--Petitioner was behind the bars, since the date of his arrest--Investigation was already complete and petitioner was no more required for investigation--Grant of bail does not amount to acquittal of accused, as custody of accused was shifted from judicial lockup to hands of the sureties, who are made responsible to produce the accused in the Court as and when required. JUDGMENT Petitioner Sahib Gul, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 66 dated 17.08.2014 registered u/S. 9-C, CNSA, Police Station ANF Peshawar. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was apprehended by the complainant and on his personal search CharsGarda weighing 05 K.G was recovered and the case was registered under the captioned FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the FIR 05 K.G chars Garda is mentioned while in the FSL reportchars Pukhta is given which shows the case of petitioner is one of further enquiry, that it will be determined during trial that whether the report of FSL is with regard to the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner. It was further contended that maximum sentence for the recovered contraband is not of capital punishment; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 4. Conversely the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that huge quantity of narcotics has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The offence also falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It was further contended that the offence is heinous in nature and also affects the society at…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492