MUKHTIAR vs STATE
This matter concerns a bail petition filed by the petitioner, Mukhtiar, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 30 grams of Charas from his person and an additional 2000 grams from a service station at his pointation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the case against him warranted further inquiry, particularly regarding the attribution of the larger quantity of narcotics recovered from the service station. Although the petitioner had been incarcerated since December 2015 and the trial had not yet commenced, the Court noted that the delay was not attributable to the prosecution. Nevertheless, because the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted the bail petition, directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the recovery of a small quantity of narcotics from a person combined with a larger quantity recovered at their pointation constitute a case for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when they are no longer required for investigation purposes and the trial has not yet commenced?
- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case where the ownership of the bulk of the recovered contraband is disputed?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' Mukhtiar, petitioner herein, who is charged in a case registered against him under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No, 1838, dated 19.12.2015 in Police Station Bhanamari, Peshawar sought his release on bail mainly on the grounds that not only he has falsely been involved in the instant case but for the alleged possession of 30 grams of "Charas", he is not likely to be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the Statute, notwithstanding, the rest of the contraband of 2000 grams has been planted against him, that too, when he is languishing behind the bars since 19.12.2015 yet, the commencement of his trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight, notwithstanding, he is no more required for investigation purpose.
2. As against that the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State argued that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail as he was arrested red-handed on the spot and 30 grams of Maras was recovered from his immediate possession alongwith amount of sale proceed of Rs,580/- while the rest of the contraband was recovered at his pointation, therefore, he being, prima facie, connected with the crime, attracting the prohibitory clause, does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
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 whether the petitioner can be saddled with the responsibility of possessing only 30 grams of 'Charms; whether the ownership of remaining stuff of 2000 grams of 'Charas', which was recovered from a showcase of a service station can be attributed to him, in the given circumstances, the fact is that he is no more required for investigation or interrogation purposes, his case calls for further inquiry. Though, he is behind the bars since 19.12.2015 and his trial has not commenced yet but such a delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution as the petitioner initially filed bail application before the learned trial Court and his instant application is pending adjudication here since 9.1.2016. However being a cast of farther inquiry, Court cannot withhold the concession of bail, at least, in such a situ:A Lion.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing 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 the ensure that he sureties are local, reliable and men of means.