ANSAR ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 340 grams of charas. The petitioner contended that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provisions and alleged mala fide involvement by the police. The State opposed the application, arguing that the accused was caught red-handed and that the challan had been submitted, making the case ripe for trial. The Court observed that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and that his continued incarceration would not serve the prosecution's interests. Crucially, the Court held that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, read with Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that denying bail at this stage would amount to pre-trial punishment, leaving the determination of guilt and evidence assessment to the trial court.
- Does the recovery of 340 grams of charas fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be denied when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the trial is ready to commence?
- Is it appropriate to deny bail as a form of punishment before the trial court determines guilt?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,11 of 2008, dated . 15-1-2008 under section 9-B, C.N.S.A. Registered at Police Station Tanda District Gujrat.
2. As per F.I.R. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that on a secret information a raid was conducted by the police and at a pointed point the petitioner was arrested followed by a body search. A shopper of black colour was recovered, which contained 340 grams charas and Rs,18 were also recovered from him.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause and the petitioner has been involved malafidely by the police.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. Submitted that the accused was arrested red handed in possession of narcotics drug as noted in the F.I.R. According to him challan has already been submitted and the trial is mature to commence, therefore, at this stage this application be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the above submissions of the learned D.P.-G. The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation etc. His presence in jail would not serve any cause of prosecution. The offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Read with section 51 of C.N.S.A. Whether the petitioner has committed the said offence and whether the prosecution is armed with evidence or not shall be seen by the trial Court? At this stage, it would not be appropriate to deny the concession of bail in the above circumstances to the petitioner as a punishment.
6. In view of the above, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,70,000 with one surety in the like amount to the