Zahoor Khan vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 500 grams of heroin. The petitioner contended that the case was fabricated due to enmity with police officials, citing prior complaints filed against them, and argued that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner's criminal record, which included a prior narcotics case, and noted that the challan had already been submitted. The Court observed that the petitioner was directly named in the FIR and the recovery was effected from his person. Furthermore, the Court noted that allegations of mala fides against the police were unsubstantiated during the investigation. Applying Section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the Court held that bail should not be granted unless the case is deemed fit. Finding no such grounds, the Court dismissed the bail application, directing the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings.
- Does the mere existence of prior complaints against police officials establish mala fides sufficient to grant bail in a narcotics case?
- What is the standard for granting bail under Section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when named in the FIR and recovery is effected from their person, despite allegations of police enmity?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51(2), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER The petitioner filed this bail application for bail after arrest in F.I.R. No. 110/05, dated 18.4.2005.
The said F.I.R, was initially registered under Section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at P.S. v Barana, District Jhang. %
2. According to the F.I.R., while the complainant Pervaiz Iqbal, SI was on patrol duty, he received a secret information that petitioner was selling heroin on the back side of his residence. A raid was conducted accordingly and the petitioner was taken into custody and 500 gram heroin was recovered from him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been planted upon petitioner because of his enmity with the police officials To support his contention, he refers to F.I.R.
No. 33, dated 12.9.2005 registered at P.S. Anti-Corruption Establishment, District Jhang on complaint of petitioner's wife Sakina Bibi. He also refers to some petitions filed either by him or by his wife against police officers, e.g. Crl. Misc. No. 410-H/2005, Sakina Bibi Vs* DPO, etc. He also submits that the alleged offences do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab submits that petitioner has a criminal record, in this context he referred to F.I.R No. 28/1982, F.I.R. No. 121/1986 and F.I.R. No. 25/2003. F.I.R. No. 25/2003 is also a heroin case. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab further submits that challan in this case has already been submitted on 5.5.2005, therefore, it is not a proper stage to grant petitioner bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsellor the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate- General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State and considered their arguments.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued this bail application in a manner and style as the petitioner is facing allegations of committing offences under Pakistan Penal Code instead of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R, and recovery has been effected from him. The learned Additional Advocate- General, Punjab has produced record against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner's main emphasis is petitioner's wife's application before the Anti-Corruption Establishment against certain police officials. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, during the investigation, the allegations against the said police officials have not been substantiated, therefore, at this stage, it is difficult to attribute mala fides to the said police officials, on this count, who arrested the petitioner.
Section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 requires that in cases punishable under the Act, the bail shall not be normally granted unless the Court is of the opinion that4t is fit case for grant of the bail, In view of the above fact, we do not feel that this is a fit case (o grant the bail, therefore, in view of the above discussion and reasons, this bail application is dismissed.
However, the Trial Court will consider conclusion of the trial in this case as soon ^ as possible. T