GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE
This bail application arose from an order by the Special Judge Narcotics/Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazir Abad, denying bail to the applicant in a case involving the recovery of 2200 grams of charas. The applicant sought bail primarily on the grounds that the chemical examiner's report suggested the offense fell under section 9(b) rather than 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that the trial court failed to comply with previous directions to expedite the trial. The Court observed that the applicant had previously filed a bail application on similar grounds, which was not pressed, and thus could not be re-agitated. Regarding the delay in trial, the Court found that the applicant's own counsel had requested adjournments, and the prosecution's key witness had already been examined without his testimony being shaken. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for bail. The application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings within two months.
- Can a subsequent bail application be entertained on the same grounds as a previous application that was not pressed?
- Does a delay in trial caused by the defense counsel's own adjournment requests constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the chemical examiner's report suggests a lesser quantity of narcotics than initially alleged?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.-This bail application is directed against the order, dated 20-5-2009 passed by learned Special Judge Narcotics/Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazir Abad in Crime No,57 of 2008 registered at Police Station B-Section Nawabshah for offence punishable under section 9(c) of C.N.S., Act, 1997.
2. ' Precisely, the prosecution story is that on 13-4-2008 complainant S.I.P. Noor Muhammad Mari along with his subordinate staff arrested the applicant/accused after an encounter and from his personal search, recovered, 2200 grams of charas in presence of his subordinates. The complainant then prepared mashirnama of arrest and recovery and brought the accused and property at Police Station where he registered this separate F.I.R.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant, prior to this had filed an application for bail before this Court which was not pressed by him on 13-10-2008 and the trial Court was directed to examine the seizing officer and any other material witness within a period of 45 days.
4. ' The learned counsel for applicant contended that the applicant is innocent; in view of the chemical examiner's report the case falls under section 9(b) which entails 7 years punishment; from 2200 grams only 200 grams were separately sealed and sent for chemical examination therefore, the applicant cannot be saddled with remaining 2000 grams of charas. He further contended that although the recovery was made at day time but no private person was cited as mashir and that the directions of this Court have not been complied with, therefore, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.
5. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the grant of bail.
6. ' I have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. ' Admittedly this bail application has been repeated almost on the same grounds which were taken by the learned counsel in the earlier bail application which was not pressed by him. Therefore, the same grounds cannot be considered in subsequent bail application as it is held in PLD 1986 SC 173.
8. So far the non-compliance of directions is concerned, the learned counsel has placed on record the true copies of the case diaries of the trial Court which show that when the witnesses were in attendance before the learned trial Court, the learned, defence counsel moved adjournment application and got the case adjourned which clearly shows that delay in trial is on the part of learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused and not the trial Court. Further more, he has also filed the true copy of deposition of complainant/seizing officer, namely, S.-I.P. Noor Muhammad who has been examined by the trial Court and has fully supported the prosecution case and despite of lengthy cross-examination, his evidence has not been shaken. Now only one mashir remains to be examined therefore, at this stage, I do not see any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. However, I direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case within a span of 2 months after receipt of copy of this order and report compliance.