SAFIR KHAN vs STATE
This criminal petition arises from the refusal of bail by the lower forum in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the alleged recovery of 2 kg of chars from the petitioner. The core legal question considered by the court was whether the quantum of recovery and the variability of punishment under Section 9(c) bring the case within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry as the punishment varies according to the circumstances and the quantum of recovery, and it remains within judicial discretion to determine the appropriate sentence. Consequently, the court established the principle that where punishment varies and depends on the quantum of recovery, the concession of bail should generally be extended to the accused unless special circumstances such as previous conviction or being a habitual offender exist.
- Whether the recovery of 2 kg of chars brings the case under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Does the variable punishment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of practice when the quantum of recovery leaves the applicability of the prohibitory clause open to further probe?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
The petitioner herein involved in case F.I.R. No, 1272 dated 28.9.2010, Police Station Agha Mir Jani Shah, Peshawar, under Section 9(c) CNSA after refusal of bail by the forum below has moved the instant petition for his release on bail.
2. On receipt of information while on patrol duty, Sajid Khan, ASI, along with police party rushed to the spot and recovered 2 kg chars from the accused petitioner. He was arrested on the spot and a case Vide. FIR ibid was registered against him.
3. Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G. for State were heard and record of the case was perused.
4. Case of accused petitioner is that of further inquiry while considering the quantum of recovery,' as the punishment provided for the offence is always in commensuration with the quantum of recovery of contraband/crime. In such like cases whether the accused would be liable to the maximum punishment provided for the offence remains the question requiring further probe and also whether the punishment in case of proof of the guilt after trial in the circumstances would fall under the prohibitory clause, as punishment provided in Section 9(c) CNSA 1997 varies according to the circumstances of the case and it comes to the judicial discretion of the Court to punish the accused in commensuration with the quantity of recovery. Section 9 (c) reads as under:-- "9. Punishment for contravention of Sections 6, 7 and 8.--Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 6,7 or 8 shall be punishable with-- (a)..........
(b)imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds one hundred grams but does not exceed one kilogram; (c)death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which may be upto one million rupees, if the quantity of narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds the limits specified in clause (b): Provided that if the quantity exceeds ten kilograms the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life.
In such like cases it remained the practice to extend the concession of bail to the accused unless any special circumstance appear in any particular case like the case of a habitual offender or previous convict etc.
4. So, this application for bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/Magistrate on duty. The sureties shall be reliable and men of means.
These were the detailed reasons for short order of even date i,e, 12.11.2010.