ABDUL SATTAR vs The STATE and others
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1050 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the status of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that since the alleged recovery was slightly above the threshold, there was no record showing whether the contraband was weighed after removal from the shopper, the chemical examiner's report was awaited, investigation was complete, and the petitioner was previously non-convict, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that uncertainty regarding the exact weighed quantity of narcotics, coupled with an incomplete forensic report and a non-convict status, can make out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether recovery of 1050 grams of charas without ascertaining the exact weight after removal from the shopper makes the case one of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 when the chemical examiner's report is awaited and he is a previous non-convict?
- Does an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under all circumstances?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 54 dated 7-2-2014 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic substances Act, 1997 at Police station, Qilla Kalar Wala, District sialkot.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of 1050 grams of charas at the time of his apprehension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and concocted one; that it is a border line case and the offence under section 9(b) and section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic substances Act, 1997 and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the petitioner is previously non-convict. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. This application is opposed from the complainant side and it is contended by the learned D.P.G that a huge quantity of narcotics has been recovered from the accused petitioner, who is also involved in two cases of narcotics. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned DPG for state and have also perused the record.
6. Allegedly 1050 grams of charas was recovered at the time of apprehension of the accused petitioner. The prosecution case is slightly on the upper limit of the quantity of narcotics falling under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic substances Act, 1997. The alleged recovery was effected from the accused petitioner while in shopper but there is nothing on record whether contraband was weighed after its removal from the shopper. Therefore, the exact quantity of narcotics remained unascertained. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 7-2-2014. The investigation is complete. The report of the Chemical Examiner is also still awaited. The petitioner is previously non-convict. All these factors made the case of the petitioner of further inquiry.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
7. In such circumstances, we have been persuaded to allow the petition and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.