MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 500 grams of Charas. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the recovery and the statutory provisions involved. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since his arrest on December 18, 2004, and that the investigation had concluded with the submission of the challan. The Court held that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Does the recovery of 500 grams of Charas 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 an accused entitled to bail when the offence charged 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
' The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,381 of 2004 registered on 18-12-2004 in Police Station City Jhang, under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. The learned counsel for the Ntitioner has argued that the petitioner was found in possession of 500 grams of Charas and the offence against him falls under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which falls outside the limits of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. The petitioner was arrested on 18-12-2004 and on his personal search 500 grams Charas was recovered. He was sent to the judicial lock-up after usual investigation. Challan has already been submitted against him. His case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
We, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.