THE STATE through Deputy Director vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR
This matter concerns a petition filed by the State seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances) in a case involving the recovery of three kilograms of Charas. The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in relying on a precedent (Ghulam Murtaza v. The State) to determine the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 created a statutory embargo against bail. The respondent contended that he was falsely implicated due to enmity and highlighted his severe physical condition, resulting from a gunshot injury to his face, which necessitated ongoing medical care. The High Court observed that while the precedent relied upon by the trial court had been suspended by the Supreme Court, it was valid at the time the bail was granted. Furthermore, the Court found that the respondent's precarious medical condition warranted his release. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for bail cancellation but directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within four months.
- Does the suspension of a precedent by the Supreme Court invalidate a bail order granted by a trial court while that precedent was still in the field?
- Can an accused's severe physical condition and medical needs constitute valid grounds for refusing to cancel bail?
- Does Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 impose an absolute bar on the grant of bail for offenses under Section 9(c)?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the learned Judge, Special Court C.N.S., Lahore vide order dated 14-7-2009 in case F.I.R. No, 34 dated 11-4-2009 under section 9(c)/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 of Police Station A.N.F. Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that three kilograms Charas was recovered from the possession of the respondent when he was apprehended at the time of registration of the case and bail has been allowed by the learned Judge Special Court, C.N.S. Lahore relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ghulam Murtaza and another v. The State PLD 2009 Lah. 362 which is only for the purpose of awarding, sentences and cannot be taken into consideration at the time of grant of bail as the maximum punishment is to be kept in mind provided in law for the purpose of grant of bail to an accused and that section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 puts embargo on the release of an accused person under section 9(c) of the,Act.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand opposes this application on the ground that the respondent has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has enmities of murders with other party who has manoeuvered registration of the case against the respondent. It is further contended that the respondent had received a burst of Kalashinkov on his face and has undergone surgical operations and his face and head was seriously damaged and he is not leading a normal life and that keeping him in jail in view of his physical condition would be injurious to his life.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and 1L perused the record.
The respondent 1 been allowed bail by considering maximum period for his sentence provh through the above-quoted judgment of Bench of this Court and by holding t according to said judgment the offe, committed by the respondent does not in prohibitory clause of section 4 Cr.P.C.
Now the said judgment has bi suspended by the honourable Supre Court and future operation of the s judgment has been suspended but we f that when the present application allowed, the judgment was in field and learned Special Judge considered the s judgment for the grant of bail to respondent. Even otherwise the respond who is present before us appears to be and keeping him in jail would be injuri, to his life.
5. Keeping in view the above, it is no a fit case for cancellation of bail. Thi petition is consequently dismissed However, the learned trial Court is directe( to conclude the trial within four month from the date of receipt of this order.