GHULAM HUSSAIN alias Bau alias Chuhi vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1120 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the ambiguity regarding the net weight of the recovered narcotic and his prior criminal record. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to clarify whether the weight of the contraband included the packaging material, creating a possibility that the offence might fall under Section 9(b) rather than Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court held that the case required further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court rejected the prosecution's argument that the accused's involvement in other criminal cases disentitled him to bail, affirming the principle that mere involvement in other cases, without a conviction, does not preclude the grant of bail. Finding that the investigation was complete and trial conclusion was uncertain, the Court accepted the bail application.
- Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases, without a conviction, disentitle them to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Does ambiguity regarding whether the weight of a recovered narcotic includes its packaging material constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the trial is not likely to conclude in the foreseeable future?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Through this application the Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 380/2018 dated 2-9-2018 registered at Police Station Shah Rukan-e-Alam, District Multan, for an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (the "CNSA").
2. The prosecution case as set out in the FIR is that on 2-9-2018 at about 09:20 p.m. the Complainant and other police officials were patrolling near the Vegetable Market when he received a secret information that the Petitioner was selling charas at Rehmanpura Pulli Chowk. He conducted a raid and apprehended the Petitioner with 1120 grams charas and W attak money of Rs.300/-.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It is observed that the contraband charas allegedly recovered from the Petitioner was in a polythene bag. There is nothing on the record to show as to whether the Complainant weighed it with or without the wrapper when he seized it. Since the weight of the narcotic is at the threshold of Section 9(c) of the CNSA, there is a possibility that the case of the. Petitioner would fall within the ambit of Section 9(b) of the CNSA if it turns out that the wrapper was not removed when the aforementioned charas was scaled. In the circumstances, it requires further inquiry to determine whether the case of the Petitioner falls within the ambit of Section 9(b) or 9(c) of the CNSA.
5. The learned Law Officer pointed out that the Petitioner is involved in four other criminal cases and contended that the Petitioner could not be granted bail on this score. This argument has no merit as it is by now well settled that unless a conviction is recorded against a person his mere involvement in other cases would not disentitle him to the concession of post-arrest bail. Reliance is placed on "Muhammad Rafique u. The State" 1991 SCMR 412), "Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan v. The State" (2012 SCMR 573) and "Qurban Ali v. The State and others" (2017 SCMR 279 ).
6. The Petitioner is behind the bars since 2-9-2018. The police have completed the investigation and they do not require him for any further probe. The trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in foreseeable future. His further detention would not advance the prosecution case in any manner .
7. For what has been stated above, this application is accepted . The Petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundre d thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.