MUHAMMAD SABIR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a second post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in a narcotics case registered under sections 6/9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of delay in concluding the trial, and the interplay between section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1979. The Lahore High Court held that the bail application cannot be allowed on the ground of delay, as the order sheets demonstrated that the delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution but was also caused by adjournments sought by the accused and the unavailability of defence counsel or the trial judge. The court laid down the principle that after the framing of charge and at the stage of recording evidence, bail is normally not granted in narcotics cases, and that section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be read in conjunction with section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1979.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of delay in trial when the adjournments are partly attributable to the conduct of the accused?
- Can bail be granted in narcotics cases after the framing of charge and at the stage of recording evidence?
- How does section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate in conjunction with section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1979 regarding bail?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1979
ORDER
' This is a second bail application. First bail application was dismissed on merits on 4-9-2007 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No,4800-B of 2007. However, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within three months.
2. The learned counsel 3ceks post-arrest bail of the petitioner in F.I.R. No,52 of 2007, dated 23-1-2007 under sections 6/9-B, C.N.S.A. The F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Liaqat Abad, District Lahore.
3. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. The petitioner was arrested on a secret information while selling Charas. In pursuance of a raid he was found in possession of 1000 grams Charas contained in a shopper. The petitioner was found guilty during the course of investigation and challaned on 5-2- 2007. The charge was also framed.
4. The learned counsel insists that since trial could not be completed within three months, therefore, in view of the points raised in the earlier bail application coupled with new points raised today, this bail application deserves to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's bail application has already been dismissed on merits and there is no fresh ground available to him. He also emphasized the need to consider relevance and legal effect of section 51 of C.N.S.A. 1979 while deciding this bail application.
6. The learned counsel has appended the order sheet of the trial Court which shows that charge was framed on 17-5-2007 and the prosecution was directed to adduce its evidence on 8-6-2007.
The evidence was not available on 8-6-2007, 28-6-2007 and 17-7-2007. A serious notice was taken by the learned trial Court on 4-8-2007 resulting in attachment of salaries of P.Ws. Their non- bailable warrants were also issued. On 24-9-2007 two P.Ws. Were present but their statements could not be recorded in view of request for adjournment made by the accused. Similarly on 12-10- 2007 three P.Ws. Were present for recording their statements but on request of the accused, their statements could not be recorded. On 24-10-2007, again three P.Ws. Namely Muhammad Amir 5122/C, Munir Ahmad S.I. And Abid Munir 15707/C were present but they could not be examined as the counsel of the accused was not available. On 13-11-2007, again witnesses Abid Munir Constable, Munir Ahmad S.I. And Muhammad Imran S.I. Were present but they could not he examined as the learned trial Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge) was on leave. On 5-12-2007, P.W. Abid Munir was present but he could not be examined as the accused made request for the grant of an adjournment.
7. The above orders of the trial Court show that entire blame of delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution, conduct of accused is also blameworthy and the present (second) bail application cannot be allowed on ground of delay. Even otherwise after framing of charge and at stage of recording of evidence normally bail is not granted in narcotics cases. Section 497, Cr.P.C. Requires to be read in conjunction with section 51 of C.N.S.A.
8. For the reasons noted above, we dismiss this bail application.
Cited by 1 case
- IMRAN MASOOD vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 259