AHMAD ALI vs STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 124/12 registered under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 1100 grams of Chars from the petitioner. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the petitioner has no prior criminal record, no public witnesses were associated with the recovery, and the report from the Chemical Examiner was still pending at the time of the hearing. Furthermore, the Court observed that the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner after a delay of 26 days, which constitutes a violation of the law. The key principle laid down is that where there is a significant delay in sending samples for chemical analysis, the absence of a chemical report, and the lack of prior criminal involvement, the continued detention of an accused is not justified, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does a 26-day delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Is the absence of a chemical examiner's report at the time of a bail hearing a relevant factor for the court to consider?
- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case where no public witnesses were associated with the recovery?
- Section 9(C), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 124/12 registered at Police Station Usmanwala, District Kasur on 27.04.2012 for offence under Section 9(C) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. According to the prosecution case, on seeing the police party the petitioner started running away and on suspicion the police apprehended him and on his personal search 1100 grams Chars was recovered from his possession and as such the case was registered against him on 27.04.2012.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case is absolutely false; that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and due to some personal dispute he has been falsely involved in this case; that the petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required for further investigation; that the petitioner is not previous record holder and no public witness has been associated in this matter and even otherwise there is nothing on record to indicate the weight of the bag in which the said Chars was wrapped and it would be determined after recording of evidence. Prayer for bail has been made.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed the bail petition maintaining that huge quantity of Chars has been recovered from the petitioner; that no malafide on the part of the complainant has been brought on record for false implication of the petitioner. However, admits that the record does not indicate any previous involvement of the petitioner in such like matter. On Court question admits that report of chemical examiner has not yet received.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. Only 1100 grams Chars was recovered from the petitioner. He has never been involved in any other case of similar nature; that no public witness was associated in the investigation; that till date report of the chemical examiner is not available and it cannot be said with certainty that the recovered material was Chars. The samples were statedly sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after the delay of 26 days which is violation of the law. The petitioner is behind the bars since 27.4.2012. He has no previous record and the person of the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Keeping in view these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for bail, his further detention in jail would not serve any purpose.
7. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.