ABDUL GHAFOOR alias GHAFFAR vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghaffar seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of 500 grams of Charas. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovered quantity falls outside the prohibitory clause of the relevant penal provision and he has already spent a significant period in custody. The Sindh High Court held that since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the quantity recovered is not large, the applicant has been in custody for seven months without any witnesses being examined, and the prosecution witnesses are all police officials with no risk of evidence tampering, the case warrants the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that bail should generally be granted in non-prohibitory offences where further incarceration serves no useful purpose and trial has not commenced.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the recovery of a small quantity of narcotics form a sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
- Is bail justified when the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and no prosecution witnesses have been examined?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Heard Messrs Inayatullah Morio, Advocate for the applicant and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, State counsel. The latter has no objection to the grant of bail, as the quantity of Charas recovered from the applicant is not big.
2. The allegation against the applicant is that on 7-5-2006, at 1730 hours, at Pir Jhandat Shah, Stuart Ganj, Shikarpur, he was found in possession of 500 grams of Charas in the shape of two pieces, out of which only one piece weighing 200 grams is shown to have been sent to the Chemical Examiner. The offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to:7 years and the applicant has 'already remained in custody for seven months. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant is not shown to be a habitual offender.
All the prosecution witnesses are police officials and therefore, there can be no apprehension of tampering with evidence. According to the report of the trial Court, no witness has been examined, as yet. In such circumstances the case appears to be fit for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD MUDASIR vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 2910