MUKHTIAR vs The STATE
This bail application arose from the refusal of lower courts to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Mukhtiar, who was charged under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner contended that no contraband was recovered from his direct possession and that the complainant failed to obtain a search warrant despite prior information. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was pending, making the nature of the recovered substance uncertain. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as it carried a potential sentence of life imprisonment. The Court held that because the alleged recovery was not made from the direct possession of the petitioner and the FSL report was awaited, the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that the absence of direct recovery and the lack of forensic confirmation constitute reasonable grounds for further probe under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
- Does the absence of a search warrant for a narcotics seizure constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Does the pendency of an FSL report regarding the nature of a recovered substance entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SHAH. JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, ,J. .---Accused-petitioner, Mukhtiar son of Zaman Khan who is charged under section 9(b) C.N.S.A. Vide. F.I.R. No,655, dated 7-9-2012, Police Station, Risal Pur District Nowshera was refused bail by the learnk two Courts below and now he has approached this Court for his release on bail.
2. At the very Outset, learrned counsel for the petitioner contended at the bar that no 'recovery in the' shape of contraband charas has been effected from the accused-petitioner. Moreover, though the S.H.O. Complainant in this case had prior information as per his own assertion that accused is a notorious drug peddler but even then he has not obtained any search Warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction/Special Court in this regard authorizing him to seize the contraband or search the accused-petitioner. He also contended that FSL report is still awaited therefore, it is not known that whether the alleged recovered substance is charas or otherwise. So, according to him reasonable grounds do exist to suggest that-the case of the accused-petitioner requires further probe.
3. Learned counsel for the State warmly opposed this bail petition and contended that there appears reasonable grounds for believing that accused is connected with the offence charged with, punishment for which is life imprisonment and as such case of accused-petitioner falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Since the alleged recovery has not been recovered from the direct possession A of accused- petitioner and FSL report in respect of the alleged recovered substances-is still awaited. Hence, reasonable grounds do exist to suggest .That case of accused-petitioner require further probe and as such the case of the accused-petitioner falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which entitles him to be given concession of bail.
5. Consequently, this bail application is accepted and the accused-petitioner (Mukhtiar son of Zaman Khan) is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Nowshera, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.