MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN and others vs The STATE
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Muhammad Saeed Khan and Anwar Zeb, who were charged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No.66 dated 11.11.2015, for the alleged possession of 2400 grams of Charas. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail considering the quantity of the contraband, their incarceration since 11.11.2015 without commencement of the trial, and the fact that they were no longer required for investigation. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioners. The court held that the mere heinousness of an offence does not disentitle an accused to bail where there is no immediate prospect of the trial commencing, as a speedy trial is an indefeasible right of the accused, and an ultimate conviction can repair any wrong caused by granting bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the trial has not commenced and is not likely to conclude in the near future?
- Does the mere heinousness of a crime disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can bail be granted where the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period and is no longer required for investigation purposes?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, C.J.---Muhammad Saeed Khan and Anwar Zeb, petitioners herein, who are charged in a case registered against them under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No.66, dated 11.11.2015 in Police Station ANF, Peshawar, mainly on the grounds that not only they have falsely been involved in the instant case but for possessing 2400 grams of "Charas", they are not likely to be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the Statute, that too, when they are languishing behind the bars since 11.11.2015 yet, the commencement of their trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight, notwithstanding, they are no more required for investigation purpose.
2. As against that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail as they were arrested red-handed on the spot and the contraband was recovered from their immediate possession, notwithstanding, they may not be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the Statute.
3. Arguments of both the parties were heard and record of the case was perused.
4. By leaving aside the question for the time being that 1200/1200 grams of "Charas" was recovered from each of the petitioner and for possessing the aforesaid quantity of the substance, whether they can be awarded a sentence attracting prohibitory clause or not, when, the fact that they are no more required for investigation or interrogation purposes and when they are in Jail since 11.11.2015 for alleged recovery of total 2400 grams of `Charas' and there is no prospect of the commencement of their trial in near future let alone its conclusion, this Court does not see any strong reason to withhold the concession of bail, when speedy trial is their indefeasible right.
Needless to remark that mere heinousness of crime will not disentitle an accused to the concession of bail, when ultimate conviction, if any, can repair the wrong caused by the mistaken relief of bail.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
Cited by 7 cases
- Ikram Ullah Versus State 2026 PCrLJ 165
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State 2023 MLD 625
- ASGHAR ALI Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 86
- AYUB MASIH vs The STATE 2019 MLD 30
- ZAIB KHAN Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 145
- MUHAMMAD ZESHAN Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 113
- SABAR SHAH Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 99