SHAHID ALI LAGHARI vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1150 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite the prosecution's argument that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the applicant had a history of criminal cases. The Court held that the mere registration of prior criminal cases does not establish that an accused is a habitual, desperate, or dangerous criminal unless they have been convicted after trial. Furthermore, the Court determined that the recovery quantity presented a borderline case between subsections (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, warranting the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, noting that the investigation was complete and there was no risk of evidence tampering.
- Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused prove that they are a habitual or dangerous criminal for the purpose of bail?
- Can the benefit of doubt regarding the quantity of narcotics recovered be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---This order will dispose of the application under section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. Filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of post-arrest bail in Crime No,175 of 2012, under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, registered at P.S. Sajawal.
3. ' As per prosecution case the allegation is that on 18-10-2012 at about 1810 hours the present applicant was apprehended by SIP Ghulam Muhammad Thahim Sajawal and charas weighing 1150 grams was recovered from his possession in presence of mashirs namely HC Qadir Dad and PC Imdad Hussain.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that while rejecting the bail application, the trial Court has observed that there is series of cases against the applicant, therefore, his application for bail was dismissed. He has further contended that in all the cases, mentioned in the order of the trial Court, the applicant either is acquitted or released on bail. He has placed on record a copy of the judgment passed in Sessions Case No,121 of 2008 in respect of Crime No,130 of 2008, under sections 395 and 341, P.P.C. Of P.S. Sujawal. He has further contended that mere registration of criminal cases against a person is not a proof of his being habitual offender, unless he is found guilty after trial. According to him nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to show if present applicant is either convicted or desperate and dangerous criminal. On the merits of case the learned counsel has contended that in the case of Allah Dino Umrani v. The State (2012 YLR 2901), in similar circumstances, bail was granted by this Court. He has also placed reliance on cases of Sher Ali alias Sheri v. The State (1998 SCM R 190) and Raja Nasir Hussain v. The State (1999 YLR 1356).
5. ' Learned D.P.G. For the State while opposing the application has contended that the applicant has committed an offence, which is punishable for ten years falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, is not entitled to concession of bail.
6. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as the case-laws relied upon. I do agree with the submission of applicant's counsel that no material has been placed on record by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation that the applicant is previously convicted or is a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal and mere registration of criminal cases against a person is no proof of his being a habitual offender, unless he is found guilty after the trial. In this context I am fortified by case of Raja Nasir Hussain (supra). Applicant is in custody. Investigation is over. Prosecution witnesses are police official, therefore, there is no apprehension of tampering with the evidence.
7. The recovery of alleged narcotic, weighing 1150 grams, from the possession of accused, in presence of police officials, is a border line case between subsections (b) and (c) of section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and benefit of which could be extended to the accused even at bail stage. This view has been taken by my learned brother Mr. Naimatullah Phulpoto, J., in the case of Allah Dino Umrani (supra). I am. In agreement with the dictum laid down in the said decision.
8. In view of above discussion I admit the applicant to bail subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.