Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 674 2015 SLD 674 2015 YLR 568
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 63 of 2014, decided on 23rd September, 2014. DATE of hearing: 9th September, 2014
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI AND MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, JJ
Shoukat Rakhshani, Special Prosecutor, ANF for Applicant. Syed Ayaz Zahoor for
Respondent

The STATE through Regional Director AntINarcotics Force, Quetta

VS

ABDUL HAMEED

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(5),498,161

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),15,51

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497(5) & 498---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 15 & 51---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Pre-arrest bail, cancellation of---Principal accused disclosed the name of accused during the on-spot interrogation, but no private person was associated during the course of alleged disclosure made by principal accused---Accused, according to prosecution case, was fugitive from law and remained absconder, but documents submitted by accused had shown that accused had gone abroad at the time of alleged recovery; and on his return, on knowing about registration of the case against him, he surrendered before the court and obtained ad interim pre-arrest bail---Section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 though imposed an embargo on grant of bail to accused in the narcotics case, but, the right of bail could not be withheld as punishment---Court, in appropriate cases, therefore, could grant bail---Allegation of mala fides on the part of prosecution agency, prima facie was plausible---For purpose of cancellation of bail, agency/ person had to show that either the order passed by the court was perverse or against the principles of law, or accused after being admitted to bail was trying to tamper with the evidence, or there was apprehension of repetition of the offence---Neither any such ground was agitated, nor argued---Disclosure by principal accused was not admissible as evidence---Evidentiary value of such disclosure was to be seen at trial, but same could only be termed as a "statement under S.161, Cr.P.C."; which could be considered for purpose of cancellation of bail; and case against accused required further probe---Order granting bail, in circumstances, could not be interfered with---Application for cancellation of bail, being devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances. The State v. Abdul Qayum 2001 SCMR 14 ref. ORDER MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J.---This application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the Regional Director, Anti Narcotics Force Balochistan Quetta, (ANF) against the respondent Abdul Hameed, who was admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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