TEHSEEN ULLAH alias JANBAZ vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 400 grams of Charas and 'Watak' money. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the quantity recovered, the absence of previous criminal record, and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced. The court held that since a meager quantity of 400 grams of Charas was recovered, the petitioner was a previous non-convict, and incarceration without the commencement of trial would amount to pre-trial punishment, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the recovery of a meager narcotic quantity coupled with non-commencement of trial and lack of previous criminal record justifies the grant of bail on the grounds of further inquiry.
- Whether recovery of a meager quantity of narcotic substance entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does continued incarceration of an accused without the commencement of trial amount to pre-trial punishment?
- Whether non-association of private witnesses in a thickly populated area attracts the provisions of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Tehseen Ullah alias Janbaz, petitioner through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 521 dated 26.11.2009, registered under Section 9-B, CNSA, 1997 registered at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 400 grams of `Charas' along with Wattak money Rs,475/-, when he was selling the same on `Pathanowala' hotel opposite Supreme Feeds.
3. It is contended that petitioner is innocent and has been roped in this case falsely with mala fide intention; that the place of occurrence as alleged by the complainant is Pathanowala hotel', which is situated in thickly populated area and also a public place, inspite of it not a single respectable person was associated to join the recovery proceeding. Hence mandatory Section 103 Cr.P.C., has been violated by the local police; that recovery effected from the petitioner has actually been planted on him; that maximum sentence in the alleged offence is seven years, which does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed upon PLD 1995 S.C.34.; that the petitioner is first offender and has no previous record which makes the case of petitioner for further inquiry; that report of Chemical Examiner regarding `Charas' is not available and it is yet to be determined whether the recovered material was Charas' or not; that although challan of the case has been submitted but trial yet has not been commenced; that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and that the investigation is complete and petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the grounds that 400 grams of `Charas' along with Watak money Rs,475 was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that the police officials are as good witness as private ones.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Since a meager quantity of poppy 400 grams of `Charas' has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since his arrest and no more required by the police for further investigation. Even otherwise, incarceration of the petitioner in jail without even commencement of trial would amount to punishing him before trial, which is not the mandate of law. In the circumstances, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.