SHAZIA vs The STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner Shazia seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 2400 grams of Charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail considering the statutory period of incarceration, the non-commencement of her trial, and her no longer being required for investigation, notwithstanding the prohibitory clause attached to the offence. The Peshawar High Court held that since the petitioner has been in jail since 30.01.2018 and there is no prospect of the commencement of her trial in the near future, while she is no more required for investigation purposes, she is entitled to be released on bail. The court laid down the principle that protracted incarceration without the prospect of an early conclusion or commencement of trial serves as a valid ground for granting bail, even in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of offences involving narcotics.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has not commenced despite protracted incarceration?
- Does the recovery of 2400 grams of Charas strictly bar the grant of bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in circumstances of delayed trial?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for further investigation or interrogation?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---Shazia, the petitioner, who is charged in a case registered against her under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No.20, dated 30.01.2018 in Police Station ANF, Peshawar, has sought her release on bail mainly on the grounds that not only she has falsely been involved in the instant case but, for possessing 2400 grams of "Charas", she is not likely to be awarded the maximum sentence provided by the Statute, that too, when she is languishing behind the bars since 30.01.2018 yet, the commencement of her trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight, notwithstanding, she is no more required for investigation purpose.
2. As against that the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/ANF by opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner submitted that the concession of bail cannot be granted on the basis of hypothetical and presumptive arguments as she was arrested red-handed on the spot and the incriminating substance has been recovered from her immediate possession, therefore, she being, prima facie, connected with the crime, attracting the prohibitory clause, does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
3. I have gone through the available record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
4. Leaving aside the questions for the time being that for possessing 2400 grams of "Charas", whether the petitioner can be awarded a sentence attracting prohibitory clause or not; whether any incriminating thing has been recovered from the direct possession of the petitioner; why the statements of the driver, cleaner and other passengers of the vehicle have not been recorded; whether the recovery has been effected in the mode and manner, as described in the murasila or the exaggerated one, the fact that when she is no more required for investigation or interrogation purposes and is in Jail since 30.01.2018 for the alleged recovery of the aforesaid stuff and there is no prospect of the commencement of her trial in near future let alone its conclusion, I do not see any strong reason to withhold the concession of bail to her.
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 Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.