Munsif Khan son of Naras Wali vs The State
This matter concerns a third bail application filed by the applicant, Munsif Khan, seeking post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the statutory delay provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and whether inordinate delay in trial proceedings justifies bail when the applicant has contributed to that delay. The Court held that the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not available as a matter of right for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, as section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 ousts the application of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court determined that while inordinate trial delay can be a ground for bail, it was not applicable here as the applicant was partially responsible for the delay. The bail application was dismissed with a direction to conclude the trial within two months.
- Does the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 oust the application of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial be considered a ground for bail independent of the provisions of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry J. - This is the third bail application filed by the Applicant before this Court, this time seeking bail on the ground of statutory period of delay provided by the third proviso to section 497(1) CrPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the Special Prosecutor ANF.
3. The case of State v. Mobin Khan (2000 SCMR 299) had observed that the third proviso to section 497(1) CrPC is not available where the offence alleged under the CNS Act may attract punishment of death. Learned counsel for the Applicant appears to be correct to the extent that given the quantum of narcotic allegedly recovered from the Applicant and the case of Khuda Bakhsh v. The State (2015 SCMR 735), punishment for death is not a possible outcome. However, neither learned counsel for the Applicant nor the Special Prosecutor ANF were able to say that the third proviso to section 497(1) CrPC can be invoked as a matter of right when section 51 of the CNS Act does not stipulate so. In fact, it was held in the case of Anti-Narcotic Force v. Qasim Ali (2019 SCMR 1928) that section 51 of the CNS Act ousts the application of the provisions of section 497 CrPC.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that nevertheless inordinate delay in the conclusion of trial can be considered as a ground for bail under section 51 of the CNS Act independent of the provisions of section 497 CrPC. While that submission is not without force, the diary of the trial Court placed on the record reflects that the delay in this case has not been solely on account of the prosecution or vacancy of the Court, but that the counsel for the Applicant was equally responsible as he remained absent on at least 19 dates, and then also consumed time in repeating bail applications. At this juncture, learned Special Prosecutor ANF states that only three prosecution witnesses remain to be examined.
5. In view of the foregoing, this bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court shall make an effort to conclude the trial within two [02] months.