Kamran and another vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by two accused persons charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 29 kilograms of Charas from a vehicle they were occupying. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence presented. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the petition, holding that the accused were prima facie connected to the alleged offence. The Court reasoned that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from the vehicle, coupled with the absence of any demonstrated enmity or ill-will between the accused and the police, established reasonable grounds to believe the accused were involved. The Court affirmed the principle that offences under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, which carry a maximum sentence of death, fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby disentitling the accused to bail at the pre-trial stage when prima facie evidence exists.
- Does an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a bail petitioner entitled to relief when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in a narcotics offence involving a large quantity of contraband?
- Does the absence of demonstrated ill-will between the accused and the police impact the court's assessment of a bail petition?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant bail petition filed under section 497 Cr.P.C, the petitioners/accused have sought post arrest bail in case FIR No.105/2019 dated 10-8-2019, registered under section 9-(C) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 at Police Station Jutial, Gilgit.
2. Briefly allegations against the petitione rs/accused as narrated in the FIR are that, on 10-8-2019, Police of Police Station Jutial Gilgit, received Spy inform ation that a vehicle Datsun bearing registration No.NWFP-Peshawar J- 6865 left for Gilgit from Rawalpindi loaded with vegetables and huge quantity of Charas. On receipt of this information, the complainant and other Police Officials of Police Station Jutial, Gilgit proceeded to Police Check Post Jutial, Gilgit and waited for the said vehicle. In the meanwhile, at about 20:30 hours the aforesaid vehicle reached at Police Check Post Jutial, Gilgit from Rawalpindi side. The police intercepted the said vehicle of the petitioners/accused and recovered 29 KG contraband Charas from the said vehicle. At the time of recovery of contraband Charas from the vehicle, the petitioner No.1/accused namely Kamran was on driving seat and petitioner No.2/accused namely , Anwar Badshah was on the front seat of the said vehicle (Datsun). After recovery of 29 KG contraband Charas, the police apprehended both the above named petitioners/accused.
3. It would not be incongruous to mention here, that the petitioners/accused earlier had filed bail petition in the court of Special Judge CNSA/Sessions Judge, Gilgit, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit vide bail order dated 18-9-2019, hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners/accused contended that the petitioners/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated them in this case by the Police. The learned counsel for petitioners/accused further argued that the case of the petitioners/accused is doubtful which requires further inquiry , therefore, the petitioners/ accused are entitled for concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned Dy. Advocate General vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the petitioners/ accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and huge quantity of contraband Charas was recovered from the vehicle of the petitioners/accused in presence of marginal witnesses. The learned Dy. A.G. further argued that the offence under section 9(c) CNSA 1997 falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr .P.C, therefore, the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail.
6. We have gone through the available record and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly , both the petitioners/accused are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. Huge quantity of 29 KG contraband Charas was recovered from the vehicle, which was driving by the petitioner No. 1/accused namely Kamran son of Lal Zada and the petitioner No.2/accused namely Anwar Badshah son of Shah Pasand was conductor of the aforesaid vehicle. The Police took the contraba nd Charas into possession in presence of marginal witnesses from the vehicle in, question. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has not been able to point out any backgroun d of ill will or bitterness between the petitioners/accused and local police and the local police so as to prompt the petitioners/accused to falsely implicate in this case. The offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act 1997 entails a maximum sentence of death, as such falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr .P.C.
8. From tentative assessment of material collected by the prosecution during investigation, it shows, that the petitioners/ accused are prima facie connected with the alleged offence, therefore, the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, we have come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds do exist to believe that the petitioners/accused are prima facie involved in the alleged offence and this bail petition is, therefore, dismissed. File.