Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ijaz-ul-HassanSyed Sardar Hussain,Malik Akhtar Khan
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 510
[Peshawar]
Before Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan, J
MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1232 of 2002, decided on 15th November, 2002.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9‑‑ Bail, refusal of ‑‑‑Large quantity of heroin weighing 800 grams had been recovered from the car driven by the accused at the time of interception by the Anti‑Narcotic Staff‑‑‑Prima facie accused was associated with the guilt‑‑‑Accused was denied bail in circumstances.
Nazan Shah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1540 and Gul Said v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1680 ref.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Offences not falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Courts may decline to admit an accused to bail if there exists recognized exceptional circumstances.
Imtiaz Ahmad v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545 ref.
Syed Sardar Hussain for Petitioner.
Malik Akhtar Khan for Respondent.
Tariq Kakar for A.N.F.
Date of hearing: 15th November, 2002.
JUDGMENT
Upon receipt of a spy information Motor Car No.4848‑RNG was intercepted at Jamrud Road near Secondary Board, Peshawar. The search of the car led to recovery of 800 grams heroin. The person driving the car disclosed his name Muhammad Khan son of Abdul Akbar whereas the person sitting on the front seat introduced himself Fakhre Alam son of Rokhan. Both the driver and the person occupying the front seat were formally arrested and a case was registered against them on 6‑7‑2002 vide F.I.R. No. 1‑5, Police Station Anti‑Narcotics Force, Peshawar.
2. The petitioner moved an application before Judge Special Court (CNSA), Peshawar for grant of bail which was declined vide order dated 7‑8‑2002, giving rise to the filing of instant application.
3. Syed Sardar Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner contended with force that the petitioner has been falsely associated with the guilt and that in view of the non‑compliance of mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. the recovery has become doubtful and as such case of the petitioner is fit for grant of bail. He relied on Nazan Shah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1540 (Karachi).
4. Conversely Mr. Tariq Kakar, Advocate learned counsel for ANF opposed the bail application and prayed for sustenance of the impugned order refusing bail to the petitioner. He relied on Gul Said v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1680 (Peshawar).
5. Be that as it may, without expressing my opinion about merits of the case, I find that large quantity of heroin weighing 800 grams has been recovered from the Suzuki car driven by the petitioner at the time of interception by the Anti‑Narcotic Staff. Prima facie the petitioner is associated with the guilt and I do not feel inclined to release him on bail. It is a well‑settled proposition, of law that even in respect of offences not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. the Courts may decline to admit an accused to bail if there exists a recognized exceptional circumstance. Imtiaz Ahmad v. State PL D 1997 SC 545.
6. In the wake of above discussion, finding no substance in this application I dismiss the same and decline to admit tae petitioner to bail. It is submitted by learned counsel for ANF that investigation is complete and challan is likely to be submitted in Court within a week. The prosecution is directed to submit challan in Court within fifteen days. The office shall send file of the case to the quarter concerned immediately.
S.M.A.H./679/P Bail refused.