Khursheed Bibi vs The State & another
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking 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 2420 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female accused of a non-bailable narcotics offence, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the prohibition contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed the bail application. The ratio of the decision is that while the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a category for female accused, it does not confer an automatic right to bail. Instead, the grant or refusal of bail remains a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised based on the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the heinous nature of the offence and the existence of incriminating evidence justified the refusal of bail.
- Does the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant an automatic right to bail for a female accused?
- Is the grant of bail to a female accused in a non-bailable narcotics case a matter of right or judicial discretion?
- Does the prohibition contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to female accused persons?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through the instant petition under section 497 Cr.P.C., the petitioner , namely Khurs heed Bibi seeks post-arrest bail in the case FIR No.11 of 2020 dated 10.01.2020 registered at Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang 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 10.01.2020 she was apprehended by the police and 2420 grams of "Charas" , in shape of three pieces, was allegedly recovered from her possession.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner , the Deputy Prosecutor Gene ral and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. As is evident from the perusal of the record the petitioner was apprehended by the police and 2420 grams of "Charas", in shape of three pieces, was allegedly recovered from her possession. Prima facie , sufficient incriminating evidentiary material exists, in the shape of a prompt F.I.R, the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 of the witnesses of the recovery and the substantial quantity of the recovered contraband taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, to indicate the presence and connectivity of the petitioner with the alleged crime. According to police, the petitioner is also involved in three criminal case of similar nature. Be that it may, presently no material exists to presume that the police party had substituted the petitioner with the real accused. As to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been involved with malafide due to her enmity with police, suffice is to observe that the private complaint filed by the son of the petitioner against the police officials, with regard to her version of the circumstances of her arrest and lodging of the instant F.I.R, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, AhmedPur Sial vide his order dated 27.01.2020. This fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner , so due to this admitted position the ground of enmity of the petitioner with the police remains elusive. The other litigation referr ed to by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to earlier episodes of arrest and recovery of narcotics from the husband of the petitioner , her son and the petitioner relate to the year 2018 and are hardly relevant .Obviously , the offence with which the petitioner stands charged being heinous in its nature squarely falls within the four corners of the prohibition as contemplated by section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. It is true that the case of a female fell within the proviso to section 497(1) of Cr.P.C. but it is not correct to presume that the case of such a person gets equated with the case of a person arrested for a bailable offence or that such a person gets clothed with a right to get released on bail. Grant of bail to such a person or refusal thereof still remains within the discretion of the competent Court to be exercised judiciously in accordance with the facts of each case and in terms of the principles regulating the same. The allegation against the petitioner depicts callousness of the petitioner and her indif ference to the consequences of her actions.
5. For the foregoing facts and reasons, this Court finds that no case for the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner is made out and consequently , the captioned petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed .
Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has pointed out that the report under section 173 Cr.PC has already been submitted. In view of this, a direction is issued to the learned trial court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously , preferably within a period of four months from the receipt of copy of this order . It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit.