HASSAN JAN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court upon a bail petition filed by Hassan Jan, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, along with sections 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner can be held criminally responsible for narcotics recovered from the vehicle he was driving when he denies ownership and conscious possession, and whether further inquiry is warranted. The court held that the question of possession and responsibility requires further probe, and the fact that the petitioner is not likely to receive the maximum statutory sentence tilts the balance in favor of granting bail. The court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on bail, establishing the principle that tentative assessment regarding conscious possession and the quantum of the likely sentence are crucial considerations for post-arrest bail in narcotics cases.
- Whether recovery of narcotics from a vehicle driven by the accused constitutes conscious possession warranting denial of bail when ownership is disputed?
- Does the likelihood of receiving less than the maximum sentence provided by the statute serve as a ground for granting bail?
- Whether the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the accused denies knowledge of the recovered substance?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.----Hassan Jan, petitioner herein, who is charged in a. Case registered against hi,m and another under section 9(c) dr the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997/324/353/34, P7P.C./13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, vide F.I.R. No. 204 dated 23-2-2012 in in Police Station Charsadda, District Charsadda, sought his release on bail on the grounds that neither the incriminating substances were recovered from his personal possession nor the said articles belonged to him; that the incriminating substance i.e. Charas was recovered from the diggy of the vehicle and he has no conscious knowledge of the same; that he has not attempted at the lives of the police party rather they fired at him in order to involve him in a false case, as a result of which, he received injuries on his person and that he is not likely to be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the statute, even if, it is debited to his account.
2. As against that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by submitting that , he being, prima facie, connected with a crime, attracting the prohibitory clause, doesn't deserve the concession of bail at this stage, even if it is presumed for a while that he is not likely to be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the statute and that the release of the petitioner on bail in such like cases is likely to vitiate the fabric of the society as a whole because he would repeat the crime after being released on bail.
3. I have' gone through .The record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be saddled with the responsibility of possessing the incriminating substance recovered from the rear portion of the vehicle, he was driving, particularly when it was also boarded by two persons including the petitioner, who, on seeing the police officials not only made their escape good but also tried to assault them with their firearms, especially when, the petitioner has also denied the ownership of the vehicle, is a question requiring further probe. The fact that the petitioner is not likely to be awarded maximum sentence provided by the statute is another factor tilting in favour of bail rather than jail. Needless to say that the magnitude of sentence always is variably follows the magnitude of the crime.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties; each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAREEN KHAN vs STATE PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 809