Muhammad Ramzan vs The State, Etc.
The petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 443/2011, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1020 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the duration of his incarceration and the nature of the alleged offense. The Court held that the petitioner, having been in judicial custody for over five months and no longer required for investigation, was entitled to relief. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of the petitioner engaging in the sale of narcotics, and the offense charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Relying on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court granted the bail application subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, emphasizing that the recovery of the narcotic remained a matter to be established during trial.
- Does the offense of possession of narcotics under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 51(1) of the same Act?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when they have been in judicial custody for over five months and are no longer required for investigation?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51(1), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
The petitioner/Muhammad Ramzan seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 443/2011, dated 2.6.2011 registered under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 with police station Raza Abad, District Faisalabad for having the possession of 1020 grams heroin.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up for the last more than five months who is not required for any further investigation, It is to be established in the evidence whether any narcotic was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The prosecution could not collect any evidence, showing that the petitioner was selling narcotic, although it has been alleged in the F.I.R. Moreover, as held by the apex Court in a reported case PLD 1995 SC 34 that basic rule is bail and not jail. The offence charged against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 51(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. In the circumstances, the petitioner is released on bail on furnishing the 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. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.