PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1487 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case IMRAN vs State S — 2024 YLR 1487 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 YLR 1487 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
YLR
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1487 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case IMRAN vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 497---C; S. 9; S. 497; Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1487 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case IMRAN VS State S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022], S. 9(1)(3)(c)---Possession of narcotic---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused-applicant had been indicted for having a black polythene bag in his right hand, wherein baked charas in slate form weighing 1090 grams was recovered---Fleeting view of the record, more particularly, the FIR and memo of recovery showed that the charas was weighed with the polythene bag, which was found to be 1090 grams, thus, the prosecution had failed to show that if the polythene bag of charas was separated than what would be the net weight of the charas, henceforth, it would be a case of further inquiry as to whether the recovered charas squared under S. 9(1)(3)(b) or under S. 9(1)(3)(c) of the Act of 1997, in order to determine the quantum of punishment as well as to find out as to whether the sentence fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Cr.P.C or otherwise---In wake of the above, it could be gathered with no other view that eventually it became a border line case between Cls. (b) & (c) of S. 9 of the Act of 1997 as the weight was slightly higher than the prescribed limit of S.9(1)(3)(b)---Admittedly, S. 9(1)(3)(b) did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Cr.P.C, which entitled the accused-applicant for the concession of bail on the principle that bail in offences not falling in prohibitory clause was a rule, whilst its refusal was an exception---Petition was allowed and accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English