BABAR ALI vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 5-kilograms of charas and 2-kilograms of opium. The core legal question was whether the separation of only 10-grams of charas and 10-grams of opium for chemical analysis rendered the samples unrepresentative of the bulk recovery, thereby bringing the case outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the separated material of 10-grams could not be considered representative of the whole recovered material, and given the lack of criminal history and the applicable sentences, the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle regarding representative sampling of narcotic substances for chemical analysis in bail matters.
- Whether the separation of a small quantity of narcotics for chemical analysis from a larger bulk recovery can be considered representative of the whole recovered material?
- Does an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when samples are not representative?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause and lacks a criminal history of similar cases?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Babar Ali petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 314, dated 15.06.2012 offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Seetal Mari, district Multan.
2. Allegedly charas weighing 5-kilograms was recovered in the shape of different pieces, whereas, the recovery of 2-kilograms of opium is also the allegation. Out of recovered narcotic substances, only 10-grams of charas and 10-grams of opium were separated for chemical analysis. It is not clear as to the recovered charas was consisted upon what number of pieces. Thus, the separated material of 10-grams would not be considered in a representative nature to whole of the recovered material. Similar is the case with regard to the recovered opium.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed his reliance on the cases of Ameer Zeb versus The State" (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 380) and "Ghulam Murtaza and another versus The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362), by contending that only a material of 10- grams charas, at the most, can be attributed against the petitioner whereas in view of the chart provided in Ghulam Murtaza's case with regard to the recovered opium, maximum sentence of four years can be considered as prescribed one and on both count the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. There is no criminal history of the cases of such like nature against the present petitioner and thus he is entitled to be released on bail.
4. Resultantly, we allow this petition and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.