Muhammad Ramzan vs The State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 115 registered under Section 9(c) and Section 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner sought bail after being implicated in a narcotics case where no contraband was recovered from his physical possession. The court observed that while a sum of money was recovered, there was no evidence linking it to the sale proceeds of narcotics, nor was there material establishing a community of interest with co-accused. The court noted that investigation was complete and a challan had been submitted, rendering further physical custody unnecessary. Addressing the prohibition on bail for offences under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the court held that bail should not be withheld as premature punishment. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed that it could grant bail in appropriate cases by invoking its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the statutory bar. Consequently, the petition was allowed.
- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite the statutory bar in Section 51(1)?
- Does the absence of physical recovery of narcotics from an accused justify the grant of bail?
- Can the High Court invoke Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in cases where statutory provisions otherwise restrict it?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 51(1), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.- Through this petition Muhammad Ramzan petitioner has sought postarrest bail in case FIR No. 115 registered at Police Station Ahmedpur Sial, District Jhang on 21.7.2005 in respect of an offence under Section 9(c) read with section 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for. The parties and going through the record we have straightaway observed that even according to the prosecutions on. Case no narcotic substance had been recovered from the petitioner's physical possession. Although a sum of Rs. 6200/- had allegedly been recovered from the petitioner s possession at the time of the alleged raid yet there is nothing available on the record of investigation to establish that the said sum of money was in fact the sale proceeds of sale of any narcotic substance, In the circumstances of this case the question regarding complicity of the petitioner with his co- accused requires further probe at this stage as there is no material available on the record so far to establish such community of interest between the petitioner and his co- accused. After completion of the investigation a challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is not required at this stage for the purpose of investigation, it is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment, it may be true that an offence under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 entails a punishment of death and by virtue of the provisions of section 51(1) of the said Act of 1997 bail cannot be granted in such a case yet it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Gul Zaman Vs. The State (19S& SCMR 1271) and The State Through Deputy Director Anti Narcotic Force, Karachi Vs. Syed Abdul Qayyum (2001 SCMR 14) that in an appropriate case bail can be granted to an accused person in such a case by invoking the provisions of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. We have found the case in hand to be such a case warranting admission of the petitioner to bail. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.