MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR vs The STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Jahangir under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in connection with F.I.R. No.165 of 2011 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The prosecution alleged that 1260 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the alleged mala fides of the police, previous litigation involving a habeas corpus bailiff's recovery of the petitioner's family members from the same police station, and the quantity of narcotics recovered slightly exceeding one kilogram. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that the prior registration of an F.I.R. against police officials created a plausible grievance and grudge, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly noting that the recovered quantity was on the lower threshold of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, making the application of the maximum alternative sentence a point for trial, and that continued incarceration served no useful purpose.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when previous litigation and F.I.R.s against local police establish a plausible ground for mala fides and further inquiry?
- Does the recovery of a narcotic quantity slightly exceeding one kilogram warrant further inquiry regarding the applicability of the maximum alternative sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Is continued incarceration justified when an accused has no previous criminal record and is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' Through this petition, Muhammad Jahangir petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. In case F.I.R. No.165 of 2011 dated 9-6-2011 under section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 registered at Police Station. Karana., District, Sargodha.
2. According to prosecution case heroin 1260 grams was recovered from the person of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier petitioner was illegally detained and injured by the local police and a bailiff was deputed by this Court to recover the petitioner. The petitioner was recovered and a direction for registration of F.I.R. Was issued and an F.I.R. Was registered against the police officials, due to the said grievance police managed this false case against the petitioner after giving beating to the petitioner; that petitioner got a blotless career and there is no previous criminal record against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand learned D.P.-G. Opposed this petition on the ground that huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from the petitioner.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Sarfraz Ahmad son of Samand filed Writ Petition No.1429 of 2009 against the police of Police Station Karana with the allegation that they have detained the petitioner and his mother, whereupon a bailiff was deputed by this Court and petitioner and his mother were recovered and vide order dated 27-1-2009 the report of the bailiff was sent to DPO for registration of the case against the S.H.O. Of the said Police Station and F.I.R. No.135 of 2009 was registered at Police Station Karana against the police officials: Due to the said reason, the police of Police Station Karana must bear grudge against the petitioner and his family. Due to this reason case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry, especially when petitioner has no previous criminal record. The narcotics recovered is slightly exceeding one kilogram, the upper side of section 9(b) of the C.N.S.A.
1997. In the given circumstances whether maximum punishment of 14 years provided in the alternative would be awarded or not is also a point of discussion and further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars since 9-6-2011 and his person is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Due to above- mentioned reasons this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ASHRAF vs The STATE 2014 YLR 639