Mst. SHAMIM alias SHAMI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a female accused charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 2 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given her gender, allegations of police malice, and the non-association of private witnesses. The Court held that the bail application should be dismissed. It reasoned that the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics, coupled with the lack of evidence supporting claims of police enmity or malicious foisting of evidence, precluded the grant of relief. The Court further clarified that the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are excluded by the special statute governing narcotics offences. It established the principle that being a woman does not, in itself, automatically entitle an accused to bail in cases involving serious narcotics offences where the statutory prohibition clause applies, particularly when the prosecution's case is supported by material evidence and the allegations of malice remain unsubstantiated at the bail stage.
- Does the gender of an accused automatically entitle them to bail in cases involving serious narcotics offences?
- Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act 1997?
- Can bald allegations of police malice and extortion be sufficient to grant bail in narcotics cases where a significant quantity of contraband is recovered?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotics Substance Act 1997
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant being involved in Crime No, 3 of 2007 registered at Police Station A.N.F. Sukkur on 12- 3-2007 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 on the accusation of possessing 2 Kgs. Of Charas, seeks bail.
2. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant belongs to a respectable family and has been falsely implicated. She was arrested from her house from where some golden ornaments were also robbed by the A.N.F. And the narcotics were foisted upon her on account of enmity with people of Mangrio Tribe as the police acted maliciously at their behest. No private person was associated as Mashir though the place of recovery was a thickly populated area. Besides, it is pleaded that she being a lady deserves a lenient treatment.
3. ' Learned Special Prosecutor A.N.F. Has, however, opposed the grant of bail rebutting the defence arguments, while contending that a huge quantity of Charas has been recovered from the applicant, and entire quantity has been dispatched to Chemical Examiner.
4. ' Arguments advanced at the bar have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.
5. According to prosecution case, Charas weighing 2 Kilograms was secured from the possession of applicant and the whole quantity was sent for chemical examination. In the absence of established or reasonably convincing material to demonstrate malice it appears difficult to assume that such a huge quantity of narcotics could be foisted by A.N.F. Upon the lady. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the applicant or for that matter the tribe to which she belongs had any enmity with the police. Bald allegations of extortion of golden ornaments by police could not be supported by a mere authority letter purported to have been voluntarily signed by the lady from jail in favour of her husband, to create a doubt at bail stage, that too under a special law. Nor is there any material available on the record to assumed that there was any connection of the A.N.F. With the rival tribe as pleaded. The plea of violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Would not hold the ground in view of specific exclusion of its applicability under the statute. The alleged offence falls within the prohibition clause as it attracts the sentence of 14 years' R.I. Merely because the accused is a lady by itself would not entitle her to grant of bail in the given circumstances.
6. ' In view of above circumstances, in our tentative opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The application is accordingly dismissed.
7. ' However, applicant being a lady, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, so as to conclude the same within a short period of time preferably within a period of six months if it could not be made earlier.