Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FIDA MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: STATE
1997 M L D 2275
1997 M L D 2275
[Peshawar]
Before Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J
FIDA MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.830 of 1995, decided on 29th October, 1995.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑ Bail‑‑‑Investigation conducted by the complainant police officer having been restricted only to the recovery of heroin from the accused was not detrimental to the prosecution case‑‑‑F.I.R. being not a detailed document, failure of the complainant to highlight in it the exercise relating to taking of sample of heroin and its despatch to Chemical Examiner, could not demolish the prosecution case‑‑‑Chemical Examiner's Report had made it manifest that a sample was in fact taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report‑‑‑Accused was reasonably connected with the offence by the material available on record‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused accordingly.
Safirullah Khan for Petitioner. Sohail Akhtar for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th October, 1995
JUDGMENT
This application for bail arises from F.I.R. No.332, dated 20‑7‑1995 on the strength of which a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was registered against the petitioner Fida Muhammad at Police Station Hayatabad, Peshawar.
2. The F.I.R., discloses that on 20‑7‑1995 at about 6‑30 p.m. a police party headed by Lal Hameed I.H.C. present in Bilal Market, Hayat Abad, Peshawar had searched the person of the petitioner on suspicion and in the process had recovered heroin weighting 14 Grams.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation having been conducted by the complainant himself was not above board. It was also contended that the F.I.R., was silent about the taking of sample and its despatch to the Chemical Examiner which meant that neither any heroin was recovered from the petitioner nor any sample was taken on the spot and made into a sealed parcel.
4. On the other hand it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the petitioner was caught red‑handed, the recovery memo, and the positive report of the Chemical Examiner were enough to prove the recovery and failure of the complainant to mention in the F.I.R., that sample of the contraband was duly taken and sealed in a parcel was not fatal to the prosecution case.
5. The petitioner is reasonably connected with the crime in view of the material available on record. No doubt, the investigation was conducted by the complainant himself but this overshooting cannot be b1Qwn out of the proportion at this stage because the investigation was restricted to the recovery of Heroin which had already been made by the complainant and no further investigation was either required or conducted. As regards the failure of the complainant to highlight the exercise relating to taking of sample etc. it will be enough to say that it cannot demolish the prosecution case for the simple reason that the F.I.R. is not a detailed document and the report of the Chemical Examiner makes it manifest that a sample was in fact taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report. This bail application, therefore, stands dismissed.
N.H.Q./1963/P Bail refused.