NOSHAD vs STATE
The petitioner, Noshad, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 4 kilograms of charas. The petitioner argued that given the quantity of the recovered substance, he was unlikely to receive the maximum sentence prescribed by the statute, thereby entitling him to bail. The State opposed the application, citing the significant quantity of narcotics recovered from the petitioner's personal possession. Upon review, the Peshawar High Court held that the quantum of sentence must be commensurate with the quantity of the substance recovered. The Court reasoned that it was improbable the petitioner would be awarded the maximum statutory sentence for the recovery of 4 kilograms of charas. The Court emphasized that bail proceedings should focus on the sentence likely to be entailed by the specific facts and circumstances of the case rather than the maximum potential sentence, particularly where the ultimate conviction could rectify any potential error in granting bail. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed.
- Is the maximum statutory sentence the sole determinant for bail in narcotics cases?
- Does the quantity of recovered narcotics influence the likelihood of the maximum sentence being awarded?
- Should bail be refused solely based on the maximum potential sentence prescribed by the statute?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
Petitioner Noshad seeks his release on bail in case FIR No, 339 dated 7.6,2012 registered for offence u/S. 9(c), CNSA at Police Station Tehkal District Peshawar on the ground that in view of the quantum of substance recovered, he is not likely to be awarded maximum sentence provided by the Statute.
2. As against that learned State counsel while opposing instant petition contended that huge quantum of narcotics has been recovered from personal possession of the petitioner, therefore, on the available record he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. It is settled law that the quantum of sentence has to be commensurate with the quantum of substance recovered, hence this Court doubts the petitioner can be awarded maximum sentence for possessing 4 KGs of chars. Needless to say that the Court while hearing the petition for bail is not supposed to keep in mind the maximum sentence provided by the Statute but the one, which is likely to be entailed by the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, when the ultimate conviction, if any, can repair the wrong caused by the mistaken relief of bail.
This petition was allowed vide short order of even date and above are reasons for the same. 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.