9 C of CNSA
Sample from all rods/packets were not taken. bail allowed.
2015 S.C.M.R 735
2015 S.C.M.R 308, 291 & 279
P.L.D 2012 S.C 38 (Ameer Zaib Case)
S.C.M.R 2010 1162
2016 S.C.M.R 908, 806 & 707
3013 S.C.M.R 302
Sample from all rods/packets were not taken. bail allowed.
2015 S.C.M.R 735
2015 S.C.M.R 308, 291 & 279
P.L.D 2012 S.C 38 (Ameer Zaib Case)
S.C.M.R 2010 1162
2016 S.C.M.R 908, 806 & 707
3013 S.C.M.R 302
Latest Bail citation on 9c bail was allowed on delay in sending samples
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(b) & 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4(2)---Possession, import and export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs, etc.---Bail, grant of---Delay in sending samples of narcotics for chemical analysis---Quantity of recovered narcotics falling under borderline cases---Samples of the recovered contraband substances had been sent for chemical analysis with delay of seven days---Lapse on part of the police in sending the contraband substance for chemical analysis within the stipulated period, had made the case of the accused that of further inquiry---Quantity of narcotic substances allegedly recovered from the accused exceeded the borderline case falling between the offence under Ss. 9(b) & 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997---All prosecution witnesses were police officials; hence, there was no chance of the accused tampering with the evidence---Accused had been behind bars for four and half months, and no prosecution witnesses had been examined so far--- Bail application was allowed accordingly.
Inayat Ullah v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 840; Dilla Baz Khan v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 1437; Ghulam Abbas v. The State 2011 YLR 1723; Asif Ali v. The State 2013 YLR 1241 and Sherin Muhammad v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 726 rel.
Mahboob Ali v. The State 2007 YLR 2968 ref.
Wazir v. The State 2003 YLR 1163; Waris Ali v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1745; Hanook Babar Masih v. The State 2007 YLR 3105; Muhammad Javed v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 1427 and The State v. Abul Ghanni 2010 SCMR 61 distinguished.
2016 P Cr. L J 1315
[Islamabad]
Before Aamer Farooq and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(b) & 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4(2)---Possession, import and export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs, etc.---Bail, grant of---Delay in sending samples of narcotics for chemical analysis---Quantity of recovered narcotics falling under borderline cases---Samples of the recovered contraband substances had been sent for chemical analysis with delay of seven days---Lapse on part of the police in sending the contraband substance for chemical analysis within the stipulated period, had made the case of the accused that of further inquiry---Quantity of narcotic substances allegedly recovered from the accused exceeded the borderline case falling between the offence under Ss. 9(b) & 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997---All prosecution witnesses were police officials; hence, there was no chance of the accused tampering with the evidence---Accused had been behind bars for four and half months, and no prosecution witnesses had been examined so far--- Bail application was allowed accordingly.
Inayat Ullah v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 840; Dilla Baz Khan v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 1437; Ghulam Abbas v. The State 2011 YLR 1723; Asif Ali v. The State 2013 YLR 1241 and Sherin Muhammad v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 726 rel.
Mahboob Ali v. The State 2007 YLR 2968 ref.
Wazir v. The State 2003 YLR 1163; Waris Ali v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1745; Hanook Babar Masih v. The State 2007 YLR 3105; Muhammad Javed v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 1427 and The State v. Abul Ghanni 2010 SCMR 61 distinguished.
2016 P Cr. L J 1315
[Islamabad]
Before Aamer Farooq and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
No comments:
Post a Comment