PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 78
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)--Bail grant of--Allegation of--Recovery of charas--Principle of consistency--Whether on mere involvement of petitioner in other cases, until and unless his conviction therein, and recovery of contraband from place, where he has allegedly been shown seated, his case can be bifurcated/distinguished to that of co-accused, who have been granted bail by Court below, is sole question, calling his case to be one of further inquiry and High Court in peculiar facts and circumstances of case, do not see any strong reason to withhold concession of bail to him--Bail was allowed. [Para 4] A
M/s. Noor Alam Khan and Kamran Ahmad, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Saddique Ahmad, Advocate for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8.3.2019.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 78
[Peshawar High Court, Peshawar]
Present: Syed Afsar Shah, J.
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. Misc. (Bail Application) No. 439-P of 2019, decided on 8.3.2019.
Judgment
Sardaraz Khan, the petitioner, who is charged in a case registered against him and others under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No. 60, dated 22.01.2019 in Police Station Toru (Mardan), has sought his release on bail on the grounds that not only he has no hand in the commission of the crime as neither he is driver of the vehicle nor anything incriminating has been recovered from his possession but since sans him all the co-accused, who have been given the same role, have been released on bail by the Court below, vide orders dated 08.02.2019, therefore, he is also entitled to be released on bail on the principle of consistency, notwithstanding, merits of the case.
2. As against that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that there is a bay of difference between the case of the petitioner and that of his co-accused as not only he is habitual having criminal history in his credit of such like cases but the recovery was effected form the place, where he has been shown seated in the vehicle, therefore, he doesn’t deserve the concession of bail, at-least, at this stage.
3. I have gone through the available record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
4. Whether on mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases, until and unless his conviction therein, and recovery of the contraband from the place, where he has allegedly been shown seated, his case can be bifurcated/ distinguished to that of the co-accused, who have been granted bail by the learned Court below, is the sole question, calling his case to be one of further inquiry and I, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, do not see any strong reason to withhold the concession of bail to him.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments