Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMED VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Malik Haq NawazWasal Khan
2020 Y L R Note 121 [Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court] Before Malik Haq Nawaz and Ali Baig, JJ MANZOOR AHMED---Petitioner Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No. 205 of 2019, decided on 16th September, 2019. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25---Possession of narcotics---Mode of making searches and arrests---Bail, refusal of---Police witnesses---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 7 kgs and 100 grams of charas---Accused was directly charged in the FIR---Briefcase from which the huge quantity of charas was recovered was being carried by the accused---Such a huge quantity of charas could not be planted falsely---Contention of accused that no independent witnesses were associated in the recovery proceedings was not tenable, as the association of private witnesses in such like cases was excluded by virtue of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Police witnesses were as good witnesses as any other public witness, till some adverse circumstances were brought on record for not believing an official witness---Prima facie case against accused was made out and he was not entitled for concession of bail---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Police witness---Scope---Police witness is as good witness as any other public witness, till some adverse circumstances are brought on record for not believing him. Wasal Khan for Petitioner. Deputy Advocate General for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2019. ORDER MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner Manzoor Ahmed has been looked for the offence under section 9(c) CNSA, 1997 vide FIR No. 98/2019 dated 25-07-2019 registered at Police Station Jutial Gilgit. 2. After having been failed to obtain the concession of bail from the learned Special Judge Gilgit, the petitioner has approached this Court for concession of post arrest bail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case has been registered/investigated by the local police instead of ANF, which is an apparent irregularity. Per learned counsel the provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. have been violated on the false plea that none from the public was willing to become a witness. The recovery has effected from both accused, the petitioner and one Mufeed Ahmed son of Aman Safaid are jointly responsible for the recovery, which is evident from the FIR. The case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail. 4. The learned Dy. Advocate General opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was caught red handed and from the search of a brief case, which the petitioner was carrying a huge quantity of charas weighing 7 Kg and 100 grams was recovered. The punishment provided for the offence is death and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail. 5. The petitioner is directly charged in the FIR. The brief case from which the huge quantity of charas was recovered carried by the petitioner, such a huge quantity of charas cannot be planted falsely. The contention of the learned counsel that no independent witnesses were associated in the recover proceedings is not tenable, as the association of private witnesses in such like cases has been excluded by virtue of section 25 of CNSA, 1997. Even otherwise the police witnesses are as good witnesses as any other public witness, till some adverse circumstances are brought on record for non believing an official witness. 6. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for concession of bail. The instant bail petition is dismissed accordingly being meritless. SA/156/GB Bail declined.