Mst. LATIFAN BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Mst. Latifan Bibi in respect of a criminal case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 at Police Station City, Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering her gender, the presence of a suckling baby in jail with her, and the failure of the record to disclose the exact quantity of the recovered narcotic. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, primarily due to having a suckling child lodged with her in jail and the fact that the exact quantity of the recovered narcotics is not ascertainable from the record. The key principle laid down is that the incarceration of a female accused with a suckling infant, coupled with evidentiary ambiguity regarding the exact quantity of the seized substance, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether a female accused having a suckling baby lodged with her in jail is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the failure to mention the exact quantity of narcotics recovered in the FIR justify the grant of bail?
- Is bail to be granted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when evidentiary ambiguity exists regarding the seized quantity?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Article 3, Prohibition Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition Order 1979
ORDER
' Petitioner Mst. Latifan Bibi through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 114, dated 23-3-2005 under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 registered with Police Station City, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has a suckling baby who too is lodged in jail; and that there is no evidence about the quantity of opium allegedly recovered from the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail by submitting that it is an heinous offence and grant of bail in such-like cases is normally refused.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
5. The petitioner was arrested on 23-3-2005. She was holding a shopping bag in her hand and on search opium was recovered. What was the quantity of opium allegedly recovered from the petitioner is not finding mention in the F.I.R.? No evidence has been collected to ascertain as to what was the quantity of narcotics allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession. The petitioner has a suckling child. A Copy of birth entry issued by Union Council No, 3 has been placed on the record to prove her age. The petitioner is a female. She is entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of having a suckling baby lodged with her in jail and more particularly when exact quantity of narcotics recovered from her is not ascertainable.
6. For what has been discussed above, we allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mst. Sangeeta vs The State and another 2022 PCRLJ 949
- Mst. PATHANI BIBI and others vs The STATE and otherss 2014 YLR 158
- RAWAIDAH BIBI vs The STATE and others 2014 MLD 7
- RWAIDAH BIBI vs The STATE and others 2014 MLD 284