JEHANGIR vs STATE
The petitioner, Jehangir, 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 five kilograms of narcotics from his possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and bail, given allegations of police mala fide, personal vendetta, and multiple simultaneous FIRs at the same location. The Peshawar High Court held that the existence of parallel FIRs under similar circumstances raised questions of mala fide, and since the petitioner was a first offender and the likely sentence could be lesser than the maximum, the case warranted further inquiry. The court admitted the petitioner to bail, laying down the principle that while deciding bail in narcotics cases, the court may consider the punishment likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances rather than solely focusing on the maximum statutory penalty.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when there are allegations of police mala fide and multiple simultaneous FIRs?
- Should the court keep the maximum punishment or the likely lesser sentence in mind when considering bail in narcotics cases?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics disentitle an accused to bail if the case falls within the scope of further inquiry?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' Petitioner Jehangir son of Muhammad Sharif r/o Qadar Khel, Chamkani, Peshawar seeks his release on bail in case FIR # 229 dated 04.06.2013 under Section 9-C CNSA, 1997 of Police Station Tatara, Peshawar.
2. On prior information, that a young chap would smuggled huge quantity of narcotics to Peshawar, the local Police of P. S. Tatara, Peshawar made there of a "Nakabandi" at {{URDU TEXT}} for the purpose.The petitioner, having a bag in his hand, was intercepted thereof and on searched of the bag contraband 5 KGs was recovered thereof from the bag. The petitioner was arrested thereof and case FIR No, 227 dated 04.06.2013 under Section 9(c) CNSA, 1997 of P. S. Voch Khwar was registered thereof against the petitioner, hence seek his release on 'bail in instant case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel were heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that, the case registered against the petitioner needs further inquiry, as on the same day, place and time, another person was also shown allegedly arrested thereof and another FIR Bearing No, 228 dated 04.06.2013 of the same Police Station has registered against one Naeem Muhammad, (the attested copy of FIR is provided thereof and placed on record). The petitioner, made altercation with Police and the local Police, dragged the petitioner into the instant case, further contended, that it is not attractive to a reasonable mind, that a person would smuggled so much quantity of narcotics substances so openly and that too in a shopping bag.
5. The learned State counsel strongly opposed the release of petitioner on bail as, petitioner was apprehended on the spot with a huge quantity of contrabands in a shopping bag in his hand and there is no false motive or mala fide on part of Police against the petitioner.
6. It is by now settled law that during course of deciding bail application deep appreciation of evidence shall be avoided, as to save both parties during trial, from any kind of prejudice effect. But in case in hand, when there is another FIR Bearing No, 228 of the same date and place except the time incorporated thereof was 18:10 hours, while the instant incident took place on 19:00 hours at the same place with similar stories in both FIR except that accused were different..
7. The petitioner is not previous convict nor ever pointed out by prosecution, involves in such like commission of offences
8. In such situation, without entering deep into the merit of the case, as the quantum of sentence has to be commensurate with the quantum of narcotics substance recovered thereof, and there is likely hood of that in the present scenario of the case, when there is counter allegation of mala fide, and personal vendetta on part of Police, the Court may award lessor punishment as provided thereof in the statute and, while hearing bail application, the maximum punishment provided there under the statute may not be kept in mind but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is first offender, no more required for investigation in the case and trial has not yet commenced so far, all these facts entitled the petitioner to be released on bail.
9. On the same facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jamal-ud-Din vs The State (2012 SCM R 573). This Court in case of Noshad vs The State (2012 PCrLJ 1901) and Cr. M.
No, 773-P/2013 decided on 01.07.2013 has already extended the concession of bail in similar quantity of allegedly recovered narcotics substance.
10. Keeping in vie the peculiar facts and circumstances of thee instant case, this bail is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Alaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
11. Above were the reasons of my short order of even date.
(A.S) Bail admitted.