MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs STATE & another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Younas, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1110 grams of heroin from his possession. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of the narcotic recovered and the circumstances of the recovery. The Court observed that the recovery involved a quantity that placed the case on the borderline between the offences punishable under Section 9(b) and Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any prior criminal record regarding the petitioner's involvement in similar offences. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where a recovery quantity is borderline between statutory thresholds and the accused has no prior criminal history, the court may exercise its discretion to grant post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovered quantity of narcotics falls on the borderline between two different statutory offences?
- Does the absence of a prior criminal record influence the court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail for narcotic offences?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Younas S/o Khushi Muhammad has moved this petition for the grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No, 405 registered at Police Station B-Division, Kasur on 20.6.2012 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the recovery of 1110 grams Heroin from the possession of the petitioner.
2. Allegedly from petitioner's possession 1110 grams Heroin, was recovered out of which five gram substance was separated as sample and instant case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are false, he has not committed any offence; that it a border line case between Sections 9(b) and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; that the recovery is fake as no public witness was associated with the recovery proceedings; that the petitioner is behind the bars and he is no more required by the police. Prayed that this bail petition be allowed.
On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this petition on the grounds that huge quantity of heroin has been recovered from the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of post arrest bail. Prayed that this bail petition be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. 1110 grams Heroin allegedly shown recovered from petitioner's possession out of which five gram substance was sent for chemical analysis. Even otherwise it's a border line case between Section 9(b) and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. There is no previous record for involvement of the petitioner in such like cases. Without touching other merits of the case he is accordingly admitted to post arrest bail in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.