MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE versus THE STATE/ANF PS HYDERABAD
Sections 497 and 103 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 (c), 25 and 51 possession and trafficking of drug paraphernalia, 1100 grams of co-accused denied marijuana, 500 grams each of two accused. Exported. The accused, while two kilograms of hashish was recovered from the case of being a borderline case of the co-accused, they were granted bail, the accused from whom two kilograms of hashish was recovered, was not kept in the same way, in this case, the consistency cannot be applied. ? With the arrest of the accused on the spot, the recovered marijuana, preliminary aspect, suggested that he was involved in the commission of the crime, for which the death sentence imposed under Section 9 (c) of the Drug Controls Act 1997 Or life imprisonment. The first person was not entitled to bail, not only was the offense of the accused covered under section 497, the CCPC Prohibition Clause, but also the bar contained in section 51 (1) of the Control of Drug Substances Act 199 Attracted The plaintiff's counsel's objection to the CRPC's non-compliance was misconstrued because under the Narcotic Material Act of 1997, the reference to a private witness was not fatal in the prosecution's case because CRPC was. Particularly excluded from his request, there was no material available on record in drug cases that would indicate that the accused suffered a disease that could not be cured in prison. Or his life is in danger if he is not provided medical treatment outside the jail, then the lawyer of the accused has argued that the accused is a TB patient and can be extended on bail, on such an aspect of the case. No exact search can be recorded,
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
