| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3846 2025 SLD 3846 = 2025 MLD 1119 |
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2024, decided on 14th February, 2025. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 03.05.2024, passed in Application No. 12 of2024).
Before Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J and Raza Ali Khan, J
Sardar Shoukat Ali, Advocate for Appellant. Sheikh Masood Iqbal, Advocate General for the State. Date of hearing: 14th February, 2025.
ZAMEER HUSSAIN SHAH alias Zari Shah---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE through Advocate General Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and another---Respondents
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)
Section: 9(c)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 426
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S.9(c)----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 426---Possession of narcotics---Suspension of sentence pending appeal---Scope---Application filed by appellant/accused under S.426, Cr.P.C was rejected---Validity--Accused/appellant was convicted for the offence under S.9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was sentenced to four years---Provisions of S.426, Cr.P.C do not grant an absolute right to bail upon conviction but rather require the demonstration of exceptional circumstances warranting the suspension of the sentence---Appellant had failed to establish any compelling reasons that would justify interference at this stage---Offence under S.9(c) falls within the ambit of special law, which is to be interpreted and applied in accordance with the legislative intent rather than in light of general criminal jurisprudence---Provisions governing narcotics offences underscore the gravity of such crimes and necessitate a strict application of sentencing laws to serve as a deterrent---In the present case, the appeal of the appellant was filed on 10.01.2024, and there was no evidence to suggest any unreasonable delay in its adjudication---Since the statutory requirement of prolonged pendency had not been met, the appellant was not entitled to be released on bail under the provision of Section 426, Cr.P.C---Applicant had failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment, thus, the same was dismissed.