IQRAR vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Iqrar, sought post-arrest bail after being charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 2.15 kilograms of charas. The prosecution alleged the petitioner was apprehended on the spot with the contraband. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to clarify the form of the recovered charas, specifically the weight and number of slabs, and whether the sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory was truly representative of the entire lot. Consequently, the Court determined that the case required further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner had no prior criminal record and was no longer required for investigation. The Court held that the maximum punishment under Section 9(c) was unlikely to be awarded given the specific circumstances, thus admitting the petitioner to bail.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to clarify the form and weight of individual slabs of recovered charas constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Is a first-time offender entitled to bail in a narcotics case where the prosecution's evidentiary chain regarding the sample analysis is questionable?
- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.---Iqrar, accused-petitioner is facing charge under section 9(c)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide F.I.R. No, 163 dated 18-2-2010 registered at Police Station Khazana, Peshawar, was refused bail by the lower Court. Now he has approached this Court for the said relief.
2. As per contents of F.I.R., there was a general complaint that a limp person is busy in selling narcotics in the fields backside Military Dairy Form, Landay Sarak, Peshawar, upon which, the S.H.O.
Along with police contingents rushed to the spot and apprehended the said person having a black shopping bag in his hand weighing 2 Kgs and 150 grams charas were recovered, out of which 5 grams was separated for analysis through F.S.L. And the remaining stuff was separately sealed into parcel. Rs, 360 was also recovered from the said shopping bag allegedly the price of sold charas.
The person disclosed his name as Iqrar (accused-petitioner), who was arrested on the spot and a case under the aforesaid section of law was registered against him.
' The samples were sent to the F.S.L. On the 5th day of recovery where it was found that the same is contraband charas.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel, also perused the record.
4. This is undisputed fact that through murasila it has not been clarified that in what shape charas was recovered whether it was in the shape of slabs and if so what was the weighment of each slab and its number. From the collective material/ recovered contraband, five grams was separated and sent to F.S.L. For analysis. The prosecution has to establish at the trial that the sample sent to F.S.L. Was in fact sample of the whole contraband lot recovered from the petitioner, making his case one of further enquiry. The learned State counsel contended that the offence falls under the restrictive part of section 497, Cr.P.C. As the recovered contraband charas was exceeding 1000 grams which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The contention is misconceived in the circumstances that it is a case of border line between sub-clause (b) and (c) of section 9 Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Admittedly, the petitioner has never been apprehended in narcotics or any criminal case. He is no more required for investigation and keeping him behind the bars will serve no purpose to the prosecution. However, in view of cumulative circumstances of the prosecution case, I found that the maximum punishment provided under sub-clause (c) of section 9 of the Act (ibid) cannot be awarded to the petitioner in view of the quantity allegedly recovered from him.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this bail application is accepted and the accused-petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court, who shall ensure that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means..
Cited by 1 case
- ZAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2689