MUHAMMAD EJAZ vs STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 500 grams of charas from the petitioner. The petitioner sought bail after it was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, arguing innocence and that the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's nomination in the FIR and the recovery of the contraband. The Court observed that the offense under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on the principle that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, the Court allowed the petition, admitting the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, without delving into the merits of the case.
- Does an offense under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.--Muhammad Ejaz alias Juggi son of Muhammad Yousaf petitioner through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. seeks post arrest bail in case registered against him vide FIR No, 83 dated 4.3.2008 for offence under Section 9-B of Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) at P.S. City Samundri District Faisalabad. Bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Samundari vide his order dated 18.3.2008, hence this petition.
2. As per F.I.R. lodged on the complaint cf Zafar Iqbal Inspector P.S. City Samundari, the allegation against the petitioner is that charas weighing 500-grams has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
3. Before us, learned counsel for petitioner contends that allegation against the petitioner is false and he is innocent; that offence under Section 9-B of CNSA, 1997 does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.
4. Conversely, bail petition has been opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General on the ground that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R; he was apprehended red-handed and charas weighing 500-grams has been recovered from him, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. v Arguments heard. Record perused. The petitioner was apprehended and charas weighing 500- grams wrapped in a shopping bag was recovered from him. Offence under Section 9-B of CNSA, 1997 does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception as held in case reported as Tariq Bashir and 5 others versus The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). Therefore, without going deep into the merits, of the case we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.