Muhammad Jahangir Khan vs The State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1,170 grams of Chars. The core legal question was whether the recovery of a quantity marginally exceeding one kilogram, which places the offence in the category of Section 9(c) rather than Section 9(b), warrants the grant of bail pending trial. The Court observed that the recovery of 1,170 grams constitutes a borderline case between the two sub-sections, particularly where the distinction between net and gross weight remains unclear. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that because the quantity only marginally exceeds the threshold and the petitioner is no longer required for investigation, the matter falls within the ambit of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail petition, ruling that the extent of the offence under Section 9(c) is a matter to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence, and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Does the recovery of a narcotic quantity marginally exceeding one kilogram constitute a borderline case between Section 9(b) and Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Is a case of narcotic recovery eligible for post-arrest bail when the quantity recovered is a borderline amount and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51(2), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner-Muhammad Jahangir Khan seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No.318, dated 06.07.2021, registered at Police Station R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi, under Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on secret information of an agent, when he was checked, he was found in possession of 1 170 grams of Chars.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. As per FIR, 1170 grams of Chars was allegedly recovered from his possession and 170 grams exceeds the quantity of one kilogram. Apparently , a meagre quantity of Chars i.e. 170 grams has brought the case of petitioner within the ambit of Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997, so it becomes a borderline case between sub-sections (b) and (c). In Saeed Ahmed v. State through P.G. Punjab and another (PLJ 2018 SC 812 ), in similar circumstances, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under:- "The record reveals that the petitioner has been found in possession of 1350 grams of charas. Since the substance recovered marginally exceeds 1 k.g. we doubt petitioner could be awarded maximum sentence provided by the statute."
In a case reported as, Aya Khan and another v. The State (2020 SCMR 350), it was held that, no where it is stated that whether it was net or gross weight of the narcotics and in this eventuality it becomes a border line case between subsections (b) and (c) of section 9, C.N.S.A., 1997".
5. In view of the above, the petitioner committed an offence under section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997, to what extent, is to be seen by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence. The petitioner is not required for further investigation. Finding it a case of further inquiry within the ambit of Section 51(2) of CNSA, this petition is accepted? and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.