MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE 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, concerning the alleged recovery of 1200 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the contention that the quantity recovered was a borderline case involving planting of evidence and did not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause. The court held that the possibility of excess weight being planted to bring the case under Section 9-C rather than Section 9-B could not be ruled out, rendering it a borderline case where Section 9-B does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the petitioner was a first offender, investigation was complete, and his further incarceration was unnecessary. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that borderline narcotic recovery cases involving quantities near the threshold of the prohibitory clause warrant further inquiry in favor of bail.
- Whether a case involving a quantity of narcotics near the threshold of the prohibitory clause qualifies as a borderline case for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is a first offender entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner, Muhammad Rafique, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 164/12 dated 19.04.2012 registered against him under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Mustafa Abad, District Kasur for the recovery of Charas weighing 1200 grams from his possession.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved by the police in the instant case; that the case of the petitioner falls within the category of borderline case as 200 grams of Charas have been planted by the police just to bring the case of the petitioner within prohibitory clause of Section 9-C of CNSA; that no form of Charas has been mentioned and in this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt; that the petitioner is first offender; that no private witness is associated in recovery proceedings; that no recovery was affected from the possession of the petitioner;. that the recovery of Rs,1000/- as sale proceed of drugs has been planted upon the petitioner. Lastly prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
3. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner is involved in selling drugs and has committed an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause. He prays for dismissal of this bail petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
5. The petitioner is first offender which fact has been confirmed by the learned Law Officer. Prima facie possibility of excess of 200 grams of Charas by the police to bring the case of the petitioner under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, cannot be ruled out, therefore, case of the petitioner being borderline case falls between Sections 9-B 'and 9-C of the CNSA, 1997 and 9-B does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. So far as the recovery of Rs, 1,000/- as sale proceed of drugs is concerned, it will be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence whether the amount recovered is sale proceed of drugs? The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and the investigation being complete, his person is no More required by the police for further investigation.
6. For the reasons stated above, we admit the petitioner to post arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate of the area concerned.