Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 5229 2024 SLD 5229 2024 SCMR 934
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 1192 of 2023 (Against the order dated 20.09.2023 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Criminal Misc. No. 1285-B/2023)
Present: Justice Qazi Faez Isa, CJ Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan Justice Athar Minallah
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC. For the State: Ch. Rifaqat Ali, State Counsel, Islamabad. a/w Daud Sabir, SI. Date of Hearing: 22.11.2023.

Zahid Sarfaraz Gill. … Petitioner

VERSUS

The State. … Respondent

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(1)

Tagline : Discussion: (1) Dishonest investigation (2) Section 166, 375, 376 & 511 P.P.C. (3) Role of I.O. (4) Section 4 (l) Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 (5) Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 (6) Rule 2 (v) of the Sindh Police (E & D) Rules, 1988 (7) Article 4 & 155 of Police Order 2002.  ORDER Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was falsely implicated in case arising out of FIR No. 173 registered at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad on 29 May 2023 which was registered as a counterblast to the written complaint submitted by the petitioner against some police officials on 17 May 2023. He further states that the record establishes that the petitioner was not at the stated place of incident and this aspect of the case has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. 2.    Notice was issued to the respondent-State on 30 October 2023 and the learned State counsel is in attendance. He states that the chemical report confirms that the seized substance was narcotic - charas - and the total quantity is 1833 grams, which as per the Table in section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (‘the Act’) comes under clause (c) of its third category and prescribes a minimum imprisonment of nine years and a maximum of fourteen years, and fine. The learned State counsel further states that the petitioner was caught red handed by the police in a public place at 6 pm in the month of May and the case against him is fully established. 3.    The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal states that the petitioner has attributed mala fide to the police and it is surprising that in the month of May at 6 pm during daylight hours at a popular public park, the only witnesses were policemen, none of whom made a video recording, nor took any photographs of the seizure and arrest. 4.    The facts and circumstances of the instant case makes it a case of further inquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted bail, in case arising out of FIR No. 173, dated 29 May…
🔒
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