MUHAMMAD IMRAN alias IMRANOO alias KALU SHAHPURIA vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged recovery of 1100 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the narcotic substance was not recovered directly from his physical possession, but was allegedly thrown by him while fleeing, and the weight was only slightly above the threshold for section 9(b) of the same Act. The Lahore High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry, noting that the heroin was not recovered from the petitioner's direct person, the quantity was marginally above the lower slab, the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, and further incarceration would not serve the prosecution's case. The petition was accordingly allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds, with the clarification that the observations made were purely tentative.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged narcotic substance is not recovered from his direct physical possession but from a packet allegedly thrown while fleeing?
- Does a quantity of heroin only slightly higher than the threshold specified in section 9(b) constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Whether continued incarceration of an accused is warranted when he is no longer required for the purposes of investigation.
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
The petitioner, Muhammad Imran alias Imranoo alias Kalu Shahpuria, seeks post arrest bail in case bearing F.1.R. No,201/2015 dated 18-3-2015, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Sattellite Town, District Sargodha.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that whilst throwing away the packet containing 1100 grams heroin he succeeded in fleeing the scene.
Contends that in the absence of any identification parade conducted for, proper identification of the petitioner as being involved in the offence prima facie case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt.
3. The learned D.P-G. Controverts the stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that a huge quantity of narcotic substance has been recovered from the packet thrown by the petitioner. The petitioner is also involved in other cases of similar nature. The learned D.P.-G., however, after consulting the record submits that the petitioner has no previous conviction in an offence of a similar nature.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The heroin in question has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is alleged that when cornered the petitioner threw the packet containing heroin weighing 1100 grams and then fled the scene. The FIR on the basis of the occurrence was registered on 18-3-2015 the petitioner was arrested on 31-3-2015 after dismissal of his pre-arrest bail petition. Even otherwise quantity of heroin allegedly shown to be thrown by the petitioner is 1100 grams in weight. The said weight is slightly higher than the weight mentioned in section 9(b) of the Act, ibid. The petitioner is behind the bars and is no longer required for the purposes of investigation. The further incarceration of the petitioner is not likely to further the prosecution's case.
6.We, therefore, allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs,100, 000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. It is, however, clarified that any observation having been made in this order is purely tentative in nature and is only for the purposes of deciding the instant petition.