NOMAN alias NOMA vs STATE etc.
This petition under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of 1265 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the ambiguity regarding the net weight of the recovered contraband and the absence of a chemical examiner's report. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because it remained unclear whether the total weight included the packaging, which could potentially reduce the charge from Section 9(c) to Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Furthermore, the pending report from the Government Analyst created additional uncertainty. The Court established that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry, the restrictive provisions of Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 do not bar the grant of bail, especially when the accused is a first offender and investigation is complete.
- Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report regarding the nature of the recovered substance constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case if there is ambiguity regarding whether the weight of the contraband includes the packaging material?
- Are the restrictions on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 applicable when a case qualifies for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Through the instant petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C., Nauman alias Noma the petitioner seeks his release on post-arrest bail in case FIR No.82 dated 20.02.2019 offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (" CNSA, 1997 ") registered at City Sahiwal, District Sahiwal.
2. As per contents of FIR, precisely , on 20.02.2019, when the complainant along with other police officials was on patrol duty, when he received a 'spy information that petitioner is selling charas in "Pull Bazar", and if a raid be conducted, he may be apprehended. Whereupon, he constituted a raiding party and conducted a raid. On the pointation of informer , he apprehended a person, who disclosed his name as Nauman alias Noma, the petitioner .
On his personal search., charas weighing 1265-grams were recovered from a black shopper which he carrying in his right hand alongwith sale proceed of Rs. 300.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. According to the contents of the FIR, the petitioner was apprehended by the police and 1265-grams charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. Though the alleged recovery apparently falls under Section 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997 but slightly exceeds the I maximum limit as prescribed under Section 9(b) of the CNSA, 1997 to bring the case of the petitioner within the mischief of Section 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997. The recovered contraband was wrapped in a polythene shopper and at present, it is not clear as to whether the weight of the recovered substance was conducted with or without the same. Thus fact would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of prosecution evidence that what was the net weight of alleged recovered narcotic and as to whether the case of the petitioner falls under Section 9 (b) or it comes under the ambit of Section 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997,
5. Another important aspect of the case is that the report of Government Analys t is still awaited, without which, nature, of recovered substance cannot be exactly determined. Therefore, these discrepancies jointly are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry as per contemplation of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Mere leveling of allegations of heinous offence is not sufficient to keep the accused behind the bars. When once accused succeeds to establish that his case calls for further inquiry and probe, then rigors contained in Section 51 of the CNSA. 1997 would not be attracted.
6. The petitioner is first offender having no criminal antecedents. He is behind the bars since his arrest i.e.20.2.2019. The investigation of the case is complete and person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation. The petitioner is still awaiting his trial, the conclusion of which is not in sight in near future, therefore, his further detention in jail would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
Accordingly , this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the-like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are only tentative in their nature and are strictly confined to the extent of disposal of instant bail petition.