Muhammad Boota Alias Bodi vs The State And Another
This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by the petitioner, who was apprehended with 2,150 grams of Charas, leading to his indictment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The petitioner contended that the case was maliciously fabricated by the police in connivance with an investigating officer from a previous case in which the petitioner was acquitted. The State opposed the bail, pointing to the positive Chemical Examiner's report, statements of recovery witnesses, and the petitioner's involvement in twelve other criminal cases. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the recovered contraband exceeded one kilogram, thereby attracting the statutory prohibition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the allegations of police connivance were unsubstantiated by the record, and since the challan had been submitted and charges framed, no case for the grant of bail was made out.
- Whether the recovery of narcotics exceeding one kilogram excludes the grant of post-arrest bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can general allegations of police connivance and fabrication justify the grant of bail in the absence of supporting evidence on the record?
- Does the framing of charges and submission of the challan affect the court's inclination to grant post-arrest bail in a narcotics case?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Boota alias Bodi petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 284, dated 04.09.2011 registered under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 at Police Station City Phool Nagar District Kasur.
2. Briefly the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R, is that Charas weighing 2150 grams was recovered from the possession of the petitioner when he was apprehended by the police.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the same day, Kamran Shahzad, ASI complainant of this case registered another F.I.R. No. 285/2011 in which the time of sending Fard Bian was 6.15 p.m.; that the petitioner was an accused of case F.I.R. No. 149/2009 in which there were 16 accused but subsequently the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Trial Court. However, learned ASJ directed the DPO to proceed against the I.O.; that present complainant managed this false case against the petitioner in connivance with the I.O. Of case F.I.R. No. 149/2009.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG for the State opposed the grant of bail while arguing that the statements of the witnesses who signed the recovery memo, have been recorded by the police; that the report of Chemical Examiner has been received which is positive; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, and that the petitioner was earlier involved in 12 cases of dacoity etc.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. According to the F.I.R., 2150 grams Charas was recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner. The statements of the recovery witnesses have been recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
He was apprehended red-handed. There is nothing on the record to indicate any enmity of the complainant and the witnesses with the petitioner. Recovered narcotics was more than one kilogram, due to which, offence under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 is fully attracted which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted and on 28.10.2011, the charge has been framed, in that eventuality, no case for the grant of bail is made out.
So for connivance of the present I.O. With the Investigating Officer of case F.I.R. No. 149/2009 is concerned, the same is not proved because nothing is on the record to indicate that the present I.O. Has any connection with the I.O. Of F.I.R. No. 149/2009. Even otherwise, there were 16 accused in the said case and no case was registered against other accused of F.I.R. No. 149/2009.
7. Resultantly, we are not inclined to allow this petition and the same is dismissed.