NAWAZ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person charged under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 110 grams of Charas. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to enmity with the police. The State opposed the bail, characterizing the offense as a crime against society. The Court considered the material on record and noted that while private witnesses are not mandatory for narcotics recoveries, the circumstances of the recovery must be scrutinized to prevent false implication. The Court observed that the maximum punishment for the offense is seven years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the accused had been incarcerated for four months. Consequently, the Court held that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the applicant was entitled to bail. The principle laid down is that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, bail should generally be granted unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
- Does an offense under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the presence of private witnesses mandatory for the recovery of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Should bail be granted when the maximum punishment for an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Granted.
2. After recovering 110 grams of Charas from his possession, the applicant was arrested by Dadu police and a case was registered against him under section 9-B Control of Narcotic Substances Act vide F.I.R. No,156 of 2003 at Police Station, Dadu.
' It is contended that, the applicant was involved on account of enmity with police and that the Charas was foisted upon him.
' Learned Asst: A:-G., however, opposed the grant of bail stating that it was a crime against the society.
' The arguments rendered before us have been considered and material placed on record has been perused.
' Though private persons are not required to witness the recovery of Narcotics substance as provided under C.N.S. Act yet the place of recovery and the time of recovery has to be kept in view to prevent false implication of innocent people, looking to the general conduct of police. The maximum punishment provided for the alleged offence is 7 years which does not fall Within the prohibitory clause contained under section 497, Cr.P.C. The accused is behind bars since last four months. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The applicant is accordingly directed to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- JANIB ALI ZARDARI vs The STATE 2014 YLR 632
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2596
- ABDUL NAEEM vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1713
- ASGHAR vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 1890
- MUHAMMAD FAIZ vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 1214