SHARJIL AFZAL KHAN vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising out of a case involving the alleged recovery of fifteen kilograms of Charas. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of the large quantity of narcotics recovered and the statutory prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and given the heinous nature of the crime and the recovery of a substantial quantity of contraband on the petitioner's pointation, no case for bail was made out. Additionally, the court addressed the unexplained delay caused by the withholding of the Chemical Examiner's report on record due to police negligence and directed departmental inquiry against the responsible officials. The key principle laid down is that recovery of a large quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a large quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause is recovered on his pointation?
- Does delay in trial warrant the grant of bail when the offence is heinous and falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is first offender; that fifteen kilograms of Charas has been planted on him; that he is behind the bars for the last ten months but the trial has not started so far.
2. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General Mr. Tahir Mehmood Gondal submits that the charge was framed in this case on 13-7-2006; that fifteen kilograms of Charas was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner; that maximum sentence of the offence is death and that no case for bail is made out.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given anxious consideration to their submissions.
4. We were surprised that although ten months have elapsed but the report of the Chemical Examiner has not been received so far as has been submitted by the A.S.-I. Present in Court. On a direction of this Court, the learned Assistant Advocate-General Mr. Tahir Mehmood Gondal has summoned Dr. Basharat Hussain, Chemical Examiner who has appeared along with the record.
According to the record, the parcel was received by the office of the Chemical Examiner through.
Muhammad Arshad, F.C. 287 on 5-12-2005 and on 6-12-2005 after the analysis, the report of Chemical Examiner was complete. According to the report the Charas in question can be used for intoxication. The said report was sent by the Office of the Chemical Examiner to the concerned police station but the same was not brought on record either due to inefficiency, negligence or ulterior motive on the part of the Investigating Officer to give benefit to the accused. In July, 2006 the S.H.O. Wrote a letter to the office of the Chemical Examiner qua non-receipt of the said report upon which a duplicate copy was handed over to Muhammad Arshad, Constable but the same was also not brought on the record. Now we have handed over all these documents to Aziz Ahmad, A.S.-I. Present in Court along with record to place the same on the judicial file. We would like to give a direction to the D.P.O. Sargodha to look into the matter personally inquire the same and who is found at fault in not placing on record that report of the Chemical Examiner although the same was sent by the Chemical Examiner on 6-12-2005. The police officials who are found guilty necessary legal and departmental action should be taken against them and a report in this regard should be sent within one month from the receipt of this order to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for the information of this Bench. We have orally asked the learned Assistant Advocate- General to convey this order to the D.P.O. Sargodha coupled with sending a copy of the same to him within four days. As far as bail petition is concerned since fifteen kilograms of Charas was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner, the offence fails within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And the offence being heinous one, so, the petitioner is not entitled to bail and this petition is hereby dismissed having no merit.