Muhammad Usman vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Usman, who was charged under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following an alleged recovery of 466 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the evidentiary status of the prosecution's case. The petitioner contended that the case was fabricated due to an altercation at the police station, supported by affidavits, and highlighted that the initial Chemical Examiner's report regarding the sample was negative. The State opposed the bail, noting that a second sample had been sent for analysis. The Court held that the negative chemical report, combined with the lack of prior criminal record and the petitioner's explanation for his presence, rendered the question of guilt one requiring further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant bail provisions, and directed his release upon furnishing bail bonds.
- Does a negative chemical examiner report regarding a recovered narcotic sample constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a bail petition be granted when the prosecution claims a second sample is pending analysis despite an initial negative report?
- Is the existence of a prior criminal record a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to bail in narcotics cases?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 96, dated 6.5.2004 under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Shahpur Saddar, District Sargodha. The prosecution story as given in the FIR registered on the statement of Pervaiz Akhtar, S.I. Police Station Shahpur Saddar briefly stated is that on a source report to the effect that a person is. Selling narcotics, a raid was conducted and petitioner was apprehended on the spot. For his personal search Charas weighing 466 grams was recovered. Six grams was separated for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis, the report received is negative.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the case is false, that petitioner had gone to the police station to see some of him relatives who were in detention, an altercation took place which annoyed the police officials present and they planted the afore-referred false case. Learned counsel adds that three persons had shown affidavit in support of the afore-referred submission and the report of the sample received from Chemical Examiner was negative. Leamed counsel for the State opposes the petition as according to him, the petitioner was apprehended on the spot. So far as the negative report of the Chemical Examiner is concerned learned counsel submitted that a second sample has been sent and the report is still awaited.
3. Admittedly the report received from the office of the Chemical Examiner qua the sample sent is negative, three persons have sworn affidavit which may not out of context in the circumstances referred to above, lt is not denied that no other case stands registered against the petitioner, ln the afore-referred circumstances the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed and subject tg. Petitioner furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail.