PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 41
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(1)--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), S. 9-C--Post arrest bail--Grant of--Ground for bail--Old age--Age of 73 years--Petitioner earlier was involved in case, under Section 13(2)(a) of the Punjab Amendment Ordinance, 2015 registered at P.S., for having unlicensed rifle but subsequently he was the owner/license holder of the allegedly recovered rifle--Petitioner’s son-in-law was involved in case u/S. 9-C, CNSA, 1997 at the same police station--The petitioner for false involvement of his son-in-law filed application before Illaqa Magistrate whereupon a report from Station House Officer was requisitioned, due to this grudge, petitioner has been involved in this case--Petitioner is an infirm person having the age of 73 years and as such his case falls within the first proviso of Section 497(1)--Bail allowed. [Para 3] A, B & C
Mr. Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad
Malik Modassar Ali, DPG. for State.
Date of hearing: 26.11.2020.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 41
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Anwaarul Haq Punnun, J.
ABDUL MAJEED--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 7163-B of 2020, decided on 26.11.2020.
Order
After having been fizzled out in obtaining the relief of post-arrest bail from the learned Court below, the petitioner by means of instant petition has prayed for same in a case registered vide FIR No. 185, dated 30.07.2020, offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, with P.S. Okaanwala Bungalow, District Sahiwal, facing the allegation that on the aforesaid date, he was captured by the police contingents and on his personal search, 2320 grams Charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. Hence, this case was registered.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. It is straightaway observed that petitioner earlier was involved in case FIR No. 309/17 dated 27.11.2017, under Section 13(2)(a) of the Punjab Amendment Ordinance, 2015 registered at P.S. Okaanwala Bungalow for having unlicensed rifle but subsequently he was acquitted u/S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. on the ground that he was the owner/licence holder of the allegedly recovered rifle, the petitioner moved a complaint against complainant/police official of aforesaid case, then petitioner's son-in-law namely Ummar Farooq was involved in case FIR No. 128/2020 dated 10.05.2020 u/S. 9-C of CNSA, 1997 at the same police station. The petitioner for false involvement of his son-in-law filed application before Ilaqa Magistrate whereupon a report from Station House Officer was requisitioned for 12.5.2020, due to this grudge, petitioner has been involved in this case. Besides this, record reveals that petitioner's son Abdul Ghaffur also moved an application to Judicial Magistrate on 30.07.2020 who called report from Station House Officer for 31.07.2020 but on 30.07.2020, the petitioner has been involved in this case which smacks mala fide on the part of the complainant/police. Thus, in such backdrop, case against the petitioner has, at least, become to be one of further inquiry. More so, importantly, petitioner is an infirm person having the age of 73 years and as such his case falls within the first proviso of Section 497(1) Even otherwise, the report of Chemical Examiner has not been received so far. The investigation of this case has already been completed; the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required for further investigation. Even otherwise when confronted, learned Law Officer states that petitioner is previous non-convict.
4. In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-(rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The above observations are tentative in nature and would not be taken as conclusive.
(K.Q.B.) Bail allowed
0 Comments