SAIF ALAM vs STATE and another
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1160 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the recovery of narcotics, which marginally exceeded the threshold for a lesser offence, warranted the denial of bail, particularly when the weighing procedure—specifically whether the weight included the packaging material—remained ambiguous. The Court held that the ambiguity regarding the net weight of the recovered substance, combined with the fact that the quantity only slightly exceeded the limit for the lesser offence under Section 9(b), rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the weight of recovered narcotics marginally exceeds the threshold for a lesser offence, and the inclusion of packaging material in the total weight is unclear, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the recovery of narcotics marginally exceeding the threshold for a lesser offence constitute a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Can bail be granted when it is unclear whether the weight of recovered narcotics includes the packaging material?
- Is a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 established when the net weight of recovered contraband is ambiguous?
- 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
ORDER
Through the instant petition under section 497 Cr.P.C, the petitioner , namely Saif Alam is seeking post-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 154 of 2019 dated 28.03.2019 registered at Police Station Dehli. Gate, District Multan, in respect of an of fence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. As per record the allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.03.2019 he was apprehended by the police and 1160 grams of "Charas" was allegedly .recovered from his possession.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The weight of the allegedly recovered narcotics is slightly higher than the maximum weight mentioned in section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Obviously a meagre quantity of narcotics substance i.e. 160 grams has brought. the case of the prese nt petitioner within the mischief of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the above mentioned "Charas" was wrapped in plastic bag at the time of alleged recovery . It is not clear from the contents of the FIR, as to whether the "Chat-as" was taken out of the plastic bag or the same was weighed along with it when the same was being weighed by the complainant. It will be determined, after recording of the evidence, that what was the net weight of the allegedly recovered "Charas" and as to whether the case of the petitioner falls under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or it comes under the ambit of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
Reliance is placed on the case of Ateeb Ur Rehman (a), Atti "Mochi versus The State and others (2016 SCMR 1424 ) wherein the august Supreme court of Pakistan has held as under:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab and perusing the material available on record, we have noticed that when the petitioner was apprehended, 1014 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from a shopper bag which he was carrying in his right hand. On Court 'query , the learned Additional Prosecutor General, after going through the recovery memo available on the file of police record, could not Show that the recovered heroin, was weighed along with the polythene bag or otherwise. If the recovered heroin was weighed along with the polythene bag, prima facie, the weight of the heroin without, the polythene bag, if weighed, might have come to 1000 grams or less than that and in that even tuality , the case of the present petitioner would have fallen within the ambit of section 9 (b) of the Control of Narco tic Substances Act, 1997. In this backdrop, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further enquiry falling within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
Reliance is also placed on the case of "Sneed Ahmed Vs. State through P.G. Punjab and another " (PLJ 2018 SC 812) wherein it has been held as under: "The record, reveals that the petitioner has been found in possession of 1350 grams charas. Since the substance recovered, marginally exceeds I k.g. we doubt petitioner could be awarded maximum sentence provided by the statute. The fact that he has been in jail for more than, seven months and his trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future would also tilt in favour of grant of bail rather than refusal,"
The learned' Deputy District Public Prosecutor states that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of the same nature.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitione r is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of, Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred Thousand Only) with two sureties each in the. like amount to, the satisfaction of learned trial court.
6. Needless to mention that any observations made, in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial-court.