TALIB HUS$AIN vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1500 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of alleged mala fide police planting and a borderline quantity falling outside the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the recovered quantity fell within the prohibitory clause and that a bald assertion of mala fide without pleading material particulars with particularity cannot form the basis for granting bail. The key principle laid down is that mala fide must be specifically pleaded with all material particulars as required by settled jurisprudence, and bald allegations of police enmity do not warrant the concession of bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bail be granted on a bald assertion of police mala fide without pleading material particulars?
- Does the recovery of 1500 grams of Charas attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' Through this petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner Talib Hussain son of Muhammad Hanif seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,265 of 2011 dated 23-9-2011 for an offence under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 199.7 registered at Police Station Laksian District Sargodha.
2. ' According to the F.I.R. On 23-9-2011 a party of police officials came across the petitioner who was behaving suspiciously and from a personal search which was conducted 1500 grams of Charas was recovered from a plastic envelop. Out of 1500 grams of Charas which was recovered 10 grams was separated and sent for chemical examination.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case. The case of the petitioner falls within the borderline of section 9(b)/9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and offence under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Charas was planted on the petitioner by the police officials with mala fide intent, hence he is entitled to bail.
4. ' The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has been charged with an offence under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. A large quantity of Charas has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has to cmmitted an offence against humanity, hence he is not entitled to bail.
5. ' After hearing. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and going through the record of the case it is clear that the petitioner was caught red handed with 1500 grams of Charm. The petitioner has been charged with an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the F.I.R. In question is tainted with mala fide and 1500 grams of Charas has been A planted on the petitioner by the police officials. No material particulars of the mala fide alleged against the police officials who caught the petitioner red handed have either been pleaded or mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is trite that mala fide cannot be alleged unless all the material particulars are given in the body of the petition and dilated upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mala B fide has to be pleaded with particularity as has .Been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1974 SC 151. From the judgment, of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above it can be inferred that this court while deciding this petition for post arrest bail would not give any benefit to the petitioner on a bald C assertion that the F.I.R. Was lodged in a contumacious manner and the police officials who statedly caught the petitioner red handed were inimically disposed towards him.
6. ' For what has been stated above, this petition being without any D. Merit stands dismissed.