ADAM KHAN vs THE STATE And Another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 1220 grams of charas from the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a first-time offender, was entitled to bail given the quantity of the contraband recovered. The petitioner argued that no independent witnesses were present during the recovery and that the quantity fell on the borderline of Section 9(b) of the Act. The State opposed the bail, citing the significant quantity of narcotics involved. Upon review, the Court observed that the quantity was only slightly above the upper limit of Section 9(b) and noted that the petitioner was a previous non-convict who had been incarcerated since his arrest and was no longer required for further investigation. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the specific quantity of narcotics, when near the threshold of lesser offenses, combined with the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and the completion of investigation, warrants the grant of bail.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovered quantity of narcotics is only slightly above the threshold of a lesser offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does the lack of independent witnesses to a recovery of narcotics justify the grant of bail?
- Can a previous non-convict be granted bail in a narcotics case if the investigation is complete?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER Through the instant petition, Adam Khan, petitioner has sought for his post arrest bail in case F.I.R No.457 dated 17-82010, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Sadder Kamoke, District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution case, as per the F.I.R., is that on 17-8-2010, the petitioner was apprehended by the police and from his possession 1220 grams charas was recovered, besides sale money (wattak) Rs.4,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, who has been roped, in this case by the police just to show karvai. Learned counsel further states that nevertheless recovery has been shown effected from the petitioner, however, there is no independent witness qua the same. Even otherwise, learned counsel submits, case of the petitioner is on border line of section 9(b) of the Act. It is further contended that the petitioner is previous non-convict and behind the bars since the date of his arrest and no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Learned D.P.-G., on the other hand, has opposed the petition with vehemence with the contention that huge quantity of contraband charas was recovered from his possession.
5. In the light of arguments we have gone through the record.
6. Bare perusal of record reveals that case against the petitioner is slightly on the higher side of the upper limit of section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner is stated to be previous non-convict and behind the bars since the date of his arrest. Moreover, he is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation.
7. In such circumstances of the case, we have been persuaded to allow this petition as a consequence whereof, the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.