MUHAMMAD ARIF vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged recovery of 5 kilograms of poppy husk. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the Chemical Examiner's report did not specify the percentage of morphine and the investigating officer had declared the petitioner innocent. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that the absence of the percentage of morphine in the Chemical Examiner's report—which, under Section 2(t)(iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is required for material to be deemed a narcotic substance—coupled with the police finding of innocence, made the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that recovery of substance without establishing the requisite percentage of morphine through a chemical report creates grounds for further probe, entitling the accused to bail.
- Does the failure of a Chemical Examiner's report to show the percentage of morphine in recovered poppy husk make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether an accused declared innocent by an investigating officer is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused found in possession of a substance without a determined morphine percentage be denied post-arrest bail under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 2(t)(iii), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 191/12 dated 13.04.2012 P.S. Alla Abad, District Kasur, under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set-forth in the FIR recorded on the complaint of Shah Wali, S.I. of the above-mentioned Police Station, is that on spy information, the petitioner was apprehended while carrying a polythene bag containing 5 Kilograms papaver-husk, whereas his co-accused fled away.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was declared innocent after thorough investigation; that the report of the Chemical Examiner does not show the percentage of morphine in the material allegedly recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner does not bear history of involvement in such cases in the past and that he is behind the bars w,e,f, 13.04.2012. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Masud Ahmad a The State (2008 YLR 1784)
(Lahore).
4. Learned DPG has vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioner and his co- accused were carrying huge ,.quantity of Poppy husk. It is, however, admitted that according to the I.O., he was innocent.
5. The report of the Chemical Examiner does not show the percentage of morphine in the material allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Under Section 2(t) (iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless the material contains 0.2 per cent morphine, it cannot be deemed to be narcotic substance. From this angle, the case against the petitioner needs' further probe and inquiry. Even otherwise one of the I.Os. has come to the conclusion that he is not connected with the commission of the offence. The petitioner is behind the bars w,e,f, 13.04.2012 and his person is no more required for further investigation.
6. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trail Court.