Rana WARIS ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner Rana Waris Ali sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 41 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of one kilogram of Charas and sale proceeds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegation, the quantum of narcotics, and the statutory prohibitions. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's vague plea of false implication due to political rivalry without substantiation did not warrant bail, and noted that even if the offense fell under section 9(b) instead of 9(c) based on the quantity, the offense remains non-bailable and entails punishment up to seven years. Furthermore, the court held that in view of the embargo contained in section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the petitioner could not claim bail as a matter of right. The petition for bail was accordingly dismissed.
- Does a vague allegation of false implication due to political rivalry without supporting particulars constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the recovery of one kilogram of Charas attracting section 9(b) instead of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, entitles an accused to bail as a matter of right?
- How does the statutory embargo contained in section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, affect the consideration of a post-arrest bail petition?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' Rana Waris Ali, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,41, dated 6-2-2006, registered at Police Station Tatley Aali, District Gujranwala for an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Ayub Baig, S.-I. Was that on spy information, he along with a contingent of police officials conducted a raid and found the petitioner holding a black coloured shopper in his right hand; a search thereof yielded one kilogram of Charas, an amount of Rs,250 as the sale proceeds in the shape of currency notes of Rs,10 denomination; ten grams of Charas was separated and made into a sealed parcel for the purpose of chemical examination.
3. The petitioner's plea for post-arrest bail did not find favor with the learned Judge, Special Court, constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Gujranwala, who proceeded to dismiss his application vide order dated 23-2-2006.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record brought by Saifullah, S.-I. The only reason put forward by the learned counsel for the grant of bail to the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of political rivalry. He has not been able to show as to how the petitioner is involved in any politics and on whose instance the case has been registered. The mere fact that in view of the quantum of the narcotics i,e, one kilogram, the case falls in section 9(b) and not in 9(c), is not a ground by itself for the grant of bail. Even section 9(b) entails punishment up to seven years and is non-bailable. Keeping in view the embargo as contained in section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the petitioner cannot claim bail as a matter of right.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 1315
- MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 1365
- AIJAZ ALI SHAH vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 2387