MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case arising from FIR No. 70 dated 17.2.2013 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of 1000 grams of chars and 4000 grams of opium. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where samples of opium from multiple recovered packets were drawn after consolidation, and the trial was likely to be protracted. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that where samples are taken after consolidating multiple recovered packets, the sample is considered to have been taken from only one packet, attracting further inquiry into the charge. The key principle laid down is that consolidation of recovered narcotic packets prior to sampling creates arguable points for further inquiry regarding the exact quantity attributed to the accused, supporting the grant of bail when coupled with statutory delay.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when samples of narcotics from multiple packets are drawn after consolidation?
- Does the consolidation of recovered narcotic packets prior to sampling create grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code?
- Is a delay in the conclusion of the trial a valid ground for granting bail in narcotics cases involving large quantities?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 70 dated 17.2.2013 registered under Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station, City Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of chars weighing 1000 grams and opium weighing 4000 grams.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and concocted one. According to FIR itself 4000 grams of opium containing four packets was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner but sample was obtained after consolidating all the packets. Therefore it will be considered that sample was taken only from one packet. Furthermore, the petitioner is behind the bars from the last more than four months and the conclusion of trial is not insight. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Fareed Ullah v. The State (2013 SCM R 302), Ghulam Murtaza etc. v. The State (PLD 2009 Lahore 362) and Jamal-ud-Din u. The State (2012 SCM R 573).
4. Application is opposed from the complainant side and it is contended by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General that huge quantity of opium and chars was recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner. Sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record against the petitioner. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It has been mentioned in the FIR itself that four packets of opium were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner and incharge of the raiding party after consolidating all the four packets, obtained sample of 40 grams. Therefore, in the light of case law reported as Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380) it will be considered that sample was taken from one packet. The petitioner is behind' the bars from the last about four months. The challan has been submitted but the conclusion of trial is not insight.
7. Therefore, relying on Jamal-ud-Din u. The State (2012 SCM R 573), this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.