LIAQAT vs THE STATE
This is a bail application filed by the applicant, Liaquat, who was arrested for the possession of 1050 grams of charas, an offence punishable under sections 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the extraction of only a small sample for chemical analysis, entitled the applicant to bail. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant was not entitled to the concession of bail. The Court reasoned that the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are not applicable to narcotics cases due to the specific provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Court established that the extraction of a small sample for chemical analysis is not fatal to the prosecution's case. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the applicant was a chronic offender with two prior pending narcotics cases, and having previously abused the concession of bail, he posed a danger to society.
- Are the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to cases registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the extraction of a small sample of contraband for chemical analysis invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can a history of being a chronic offender and the abuse of previous bail concessions be grounds for refusing bail in a narcotics case?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 20, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 21, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Liaquat, son of Jan Muhammad, (Applicant) is booked under F.I.R. No,362 of 2011 of Police Station SITE-B, Karachi under sections 6/9(c) of CNS Act, 1997.
' Briefly, the facts deducible from the F.I.R., mentioned above are that on 6-8-2011 the applicant was found near East Avenue, Ghani Chowrangi, Pehlwan Hotel, SITE, Karachi in possession of 1050 grams of charas (contraband) when he was body searched by S.-I. Raja , Azmat of Police Station SITE-B, (Complainant) and accompanied by A.S.-I. Azad Khan, PC Humayun Babar and PC Abdul Razzaq.
The contraband upon recovery was sealed after taking 10 grams therefrom for chemical analysis, which was also sealed separately. From the applicant an amount of Rs,400 and two mobiles were also recovered.
' In this backdrop of the case, learned counsel for the applicant argued that out of 1050 grams of contraband, only 10 grams were sent for chemical analysis and therefore, case became that of border line between sections 9(b) and 9(c) of the CNS Act, 1997. It was urged that there was also violation of section 103 of Cr.P.C. In the present case. Next it was urged that since the applicant is now in judicial custody and not required for investigation anymore, he be granted bail.
4. Learned A,P.-G. Opposed the bail application. It was asserted that the applicant is a habitual offender and that two cases under CNS Act are already pending against him and that since heavy amount of contraband was recovered from him, which carries life imprisonment, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5.. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.- The chemical report is in positive. As to the violation of section 103, Cf.P.C. Suffice to observe'that in terms of sections 20, 21 and 25 of the CNS Act, 1997, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not tenable, as provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C. Are not applicable in narcotics cases, provisions of which are B also directory in nature. Such view is fortified from the cases of Ismail v: The State 2010 SCMR 27 and Muhammad Noor and others v. The State 2010 SCMR' 927. The other ground regarding extracting of only 10 grams of contraband' out of 1050, grams for chemical analysis is also of not much significance in view of the case of Afzaal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCMR 573 wherein the apex Court observed that taking a sample of one gram from the quantity of alleged recovery from the case and that it would be established at trial accused was not fatal to the prosecution that such quantity of narcotics had not been taken from the recovered quantity or that it was not sufficient for a proper analysis of the same.
6. It has come on record that the applicant is a chronic offender inasmuch as two criminal cases bearing Nos.631 of 2010 and 819 of 2010 both under the provisions of sections 6/9 of the CNS Act, 1997 are pending against him and in this view of the matter the concession of bail to the applicant is not plausible. It also prima facie seem that since the applicant is a chronic offender and that both the cases mentioned above also relate to contraband shows that the applicant is involved in commission of offences, which are against the society and humanity and require serious note of this Court. It may also be noted that in the above two criminal cases, which are pending against him, the applicant was granted bail and that he abused such concession of bail and again found in possession of contraband weighing 1050 grams with the result that present case was registered against him, wherein there is prima facie evidence available against the applicant, which connects him with the offences for which he is charged with.
7. Under the circumstances, this bail application is dismissed.