MUHAMMAD RIZWAN vs THE STATE and anothers
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 1200 grams of charas from the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the recovery was planted, the police had illegally detained him prior to the FIR, and the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Conversely, the State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner's extensive criminal history, which included 58 registered cases and 28 convictions, arguing that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the petitioner lacked prior narcotics convictions, his history of 28 convictions established him as a hardened criminal. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail, despite the defense's argument regarding the case being a borderline matter. The petition was dismissed, affirming that previous criminal conduct is a relevant factor when considering bail, even if the specific offence charged is a first-time occurrence for the accused.
- Does a history of multiple criminal convictions disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a narcotics case?
- Does an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused to an accused based on their previous criminal conduct even if they have no prior convictions for the specific offence charged?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner Muhammad Rizwan, through this. Petition seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,31 dated 15-1-2012, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Banni District Rawalpindi.
2. Precisely, allegation against the petitioner is that charas weighing 1200 grams was recovered from his possession, out of which 10 grams was sent for analysis to the office of Chemical Examine.r.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are false, he has not committed any offence; that on 3-1-2012 at 1-30 a.m. The police trespassed into the house of the petitioner, arrested him, took him to Police Station and although no case was registered but he was detained there; that petitioner's wife filed an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and in view of the allegations levelled in the application she was directed to submit application before the CPO for initiation of action against the responsible police officials vide order dated 12-1-2012; that nothing was recovered from petitioner's possession and the alleged recovered narcotics was planted against the petitioner; that case of the petitioner requires further probe falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.; that bail cannot be withheld as punishment in advance; that no independent witness has been associated with the recovery proceedings violation of section 103 Cr.P.C.; that petitioner is in the judicial lock up, he is no more required by the police for any further investigation purposes and that it is a borderline case, hence, while relying on "Mohsin Abbas v. The State and another" (2011 PCr.LJ 1817) prayed that bail be allowed.
3A. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed this petition by submitting that huge quantity of contraband was recovered from petitioner's possession; that 58 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, out of which in 28 cases he has been convicted and sentenced; that most of the cases were registered against the petitioner under section 381-A, P.P.C.; that the offence under section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act, 1997 is maximum punishable up to death, hence, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant or post-arrest bail at this stage.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Allegedly, 1200 grams of charas was shown recovered from petitioner's possession, out of which 10 grams was separated as sample and sent for analysis to the Chemical Examiner, which report is present on record in positive. Offence under section 9(c) of the Act, ibid, is maximum punishable up to death, hence, falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner previously is shown involved in 58 criminal cases, out of which 28 were decided whereby he was convicted, hence, he can be termed as a hardened criminal. No doubt there is no previous conviction in respect of any of the cases involving the narcotics but previous conduct, involvement in other criminal matters and convictions if kept in mind he is not entitled for any such concession only on the ground that it was a borderline case. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case thus it is hereby distinguished, therefore, in the light of above mentioned circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed.