MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 34/2017, registered under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 120 grams of charas from a bag purportedly abandoned by him while fleeing from police. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the prosecution's allegation that he escaped from the scene, thereby leaving behind the contraband. The Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry because he was not apprehended at the spot, and the identity of the person who fled remains a factual issue to be determined at trial. The Court emphasized that while Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, imposes an embargo on bail, this provision cannot be utilized to withhold bail as a form of punishment. Finding no prior criminal antecedents to discredit the petitioner, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the embargo on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail in all circumstances?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the accused was not apprehended at the spot but allegedly fled the scene?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Through the instant petition, Muhammad Hayat petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 34 dated 06.02.2017 registered under Section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station City Kabirwala, District Khanewal.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the prosecution case as per crime report are that Rana Gul Faraz, ASI received spy information that the petitioner was selling charas. Upon which raid was conducted by the police and on seeing the police party, Muhammad Hayat, accused petitioner ran away after leaving behind a shopping bag after taking advantage of mango trees. On search of the shopping bag left by the petitioner, charas weighing 120 grams was recovered.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required and deeper appreciation of evidence is neither desirable nor permissible at this stage. It divulges from the record that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot rather, according to the prosecution, he made his escape good from the clutches of five police officials which itself makes the case of the petitioner as one of further inquiry. Whether the petitioner was the person who fled away from the spot leaving behind the contraband, is a question which will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence, therefore, at present the petitioner has made out a case for pre-arrest bail. Although Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 imposes an embargo on grant of bail to an accused person in narcotic case but the right of bail cannot be withheld as punishment. The petitioner has no previous antecedents in his favour to dis-credit him from the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. For what has 'been said above, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.