NOSHAD vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Noshad, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 4 kilograms of charas. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the quantity of the recovered substance and the likelihood of the maximum sentence being imposed. The State opposed the bail, citing the significant quantity of narcotics recovered from the petitioner's personal possession. Upon review, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail. The Court held that the quantum of sentence must be commensurate with the quantity of the substance recovered. It reasoned that the court, when considering bail, should not focus on the maximum statutory sentence but rather on the sentence likely to be entailed by the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the potential for conviction does not preclude the grant of bail where the circumstances suggest a lesser sentence is probable.
- Is the quantum of sentence in narcotics cases required to be commensurate with the quantity of the substance recovered?
- Should a court considering a bail petition focus on the maximum statutory sentence or the sentence likely to be entailed by the specific facts of the case?
- Does the recovery of 4 kilograms of charas automatically disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.---Petitioner Noshad seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,339 dated 7-6-2012 registered for offence under section 9(c), C.N.S.A. 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* 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 charas. 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 B 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.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State 2023 MLD 625
- Saif Ullah vs The State 2020 YLR 151, 2019 PHC 216
- Sardar MUHAMMAD AZAD KHAN and another vs The STATE 2018 YLR 417
- BILAWAL vs The STATE 2016 MLD 1054
- JEHANGIR vs STATE PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 106