IRSHAD HUSSAIN vs STATE, etc
The petitioner Irshad Hussain sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of two and a half kilograms of Bhang. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of time of occurrence in the FIR and the failure to specify which part of the plant was recovered, failing the requirements of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of the time of occurrence and lack of specification regarding the plant part brought the case within the scope of further inquiry, while noting that the petitioner had no previous criminal record, was a first offender, and was enduring prolonged pre-trial detention without material progress. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that ambiguity regarding statutory definitions of narcotics combined with protracted pre-trial incarceration without progress entitles an accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether failure to specify the particular part of the plant recovered brings the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does the absence of the time of occurrence in the crime report justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory right to a speedy trial and prolonged pre-trial detention without material progress?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 2(d)(ii), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Irshad Hussain, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No, 656/2018 dated 23.12.2018, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Rohilanwali, Muzaf fargarh.
2. Allegedly a police contingent apprehended the petitioner and got recovered two and, half kilogram Bhang.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, which reflects that no time of occurrence find mentioned in the crime report registered on 23.12.2018 at 08:55 p.m. There was no mention or specification as to which particular part of the plant was recover ed from the petitioner and, thus, the requirements of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act ibid are not fulfilled, and it would be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording evidence at trial if the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Ref: "Muhammad Zafar v. The State and others" (2018 MLD 1416 ). The petitioner is in jail since his arrest and his continuous detention for indefinite perio d would be unfair . The petitioner has got no previous record and, thus, would be believed as first offender . The speedy trial is the right of the accused and nobody can be detained in jail by way of advance punishment. The petitioner is still awaiting his trial without some material progress.
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in 'the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/duty judge. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.