AMIR BUX vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Amir Bux, seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 2 of 2007 registered by Excise Intelligence, Hyderabad, for an offence involving the alleged recovery of 1.5 kilograms of Charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity allegedly recovered, the contentions of mala fide and political enmity with a local Nazim, and discrepancies regarding the chemical examination of a fraction of the recovered substance. The Sindh High Court held that the allegations of political enmity could not be altogether ruled out and noted that only a small portion of the substance was sent for chemical examination, drawing support from established precedent. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety and a personal bond. The key principle laid down is that where mala fide and political enmity are plausibly raised and procedural anomalies exist regarding chemical examination, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted under the law, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when allegations of political enmity and mala fide are raised by the accused?
- Does the failure to send the entire recovered narcotic substance for chemical examination affect the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the case involves arguable points regarding false implication and further inquiry?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Amir Bux was implicated in Crime No,2 of 2007 by Excise Intelligence, Hyderabad for an offence under section 9-B C.N.S. Act 1997.
2. ' The allegations against the applicant are alleged recovery of 1.5 Kgs of Charas. He is stated to be arrested along with co-accused Khair Muhammad from whom alleged recovery of 200 grams of Charas is made. It also appears that Khair Muhammad was extended benefit of bail by the trial Court on 24-2-2007 while the present applicant was denied.
3. ' According to the learned counsel the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case at the behest of Nazim of the area concerned. It is stated that the mother of the applicant was Councillor of the area concerned. She and her family opposed the Nazim in his elections, therefore, he was inimical towards the applicant and his family. It is stated that a sequel of such enmity even the excise officials had barged into the house of the applicant and forcibly took away the valuables which was reported to the authorities concerned on 13-2-2007. Learned counsel has referred to Imtiaz Ali v. The State 2006 M LD 1961.
4. ' Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, State counsel contends that the case of applicant falls under section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act which entails punishment falling under prohibitory clause, therefore, the applicant cannot be extended benefit of bail.
5. ' It may be observed that in a case reported in PLD 2004 SC 856 where the quantity sent for chemical examination was not collected from all the narcotic substances, recovered. The prosecution story was not believed. In the instant case also it was only 10 grams that was sent for chemical examination. The allegations as to the enmity as alleged by the applicant under the present political set up cannot be altogether ruled out.
6. ' Under the circumstances, the applicant is extended benefit of bail, however subject to furnishing solvent surety in- the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Miss BUSHRA SHAHEEN and another vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 820
- DILDAR ALI, P.C. vs THE STATE 2009 MLD 133