MUHAMMAD WASEEM MUGHAL vs State S — 2023 PLD 11 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD WASEEM MUGHAL VS State S. 497---Bail---Heinousness of offence---Scope---Heinousness of offences is per se no ground for rejection of bail. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PLD 11 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD WASEEM MUGHAL VS State Special and general law---Scope---Special law has got an overriding effect over the general law. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PLD 11 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD WASEEM MUGHAL VS State S. 497---Bail---Scope---Bail is not a licence of acquittal or exoneration but simply a change of custody and in case of bail the place of custody is only substituted and the court after satisfying itself changes the custody from police and give it to the hands of sureties. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PLD 11 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD WASEEM MUGHAL VS State Burden of proof---Scope---If any dent is appearing in the case of prosecution, same is always to be resolved in favour of accused and burden of proving the allegation levelled against the accused is solely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PLD 11 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD WASEEM MUGHAL VS State S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 29---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4---Possession of narcotics---Dispatch of sample for test or analysis---Bail, grant of---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 1220 grams of charas and 30 bore pistol---Recovered contraband under R. 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, was required to be sent to the nearest narcotic testing laboratory by the Investigating Agency within 3 days but this mandatory requirement was not complied with---Arrow of presumption of illicit recovered articles as per S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to some extent had been fixed against the accused but it needed to be taken into consideration only when the Investigation Agency had stricto sensu given adherence to the codal modalities and mandatory provisions of special law---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description

MUHAMMAD WASEEM MUGHAL vs State S — 2023 PLD 11 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD