AHMAD NAWAZ Versus THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged possession of 1050 grams of Charas. The petitioner contended that the quantity was borderline, suggesting the case might fall under Section 9(b) of the Act, which carries a lesser maximum sentence. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the legality of the raid and the subsequent investigation, arguing they were conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in violation of the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, specifically citing Section 21. The Court, considering the arguments regarding the potential for a lesser charge and the procedural irregularities concerning the authority of the investigating officer, found sufficient grounds to grant relief. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one local surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
- Can a petitioner be granted bail when the quantity of narcotics allegedly recovered is borderline between different sections of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does the conduct of a raid and investigation by an Assistant Sub-Inspector provide grounds for the grant of bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 21, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
The petitioner is asking for his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 161 dated 3‑7‑2003 registered under section 9‑C of CNSA at Police Station, Sargodha Cantt.
2. The petitioner is said to have been in possession of 1050 grams of indigenous Charas at the time when he was arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no precise measurement was possible at that time and the possibility that 50 grams may have been exaggerated is also there and so this was a border line case and that prima facie section 9(b), CNSA, 1997 is attracted, where the maximum sentence is not beyond seven years. Further states that f the raid was illegal as it was spearheaded by an A.S.‑I. which is against the provisions of law. In this connection, reference is made to section 21 of the CNSA, 1997. Further states that the investigation is being conducted by an A.S.‑I. which further adds to the illegality. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./A‑20/L Bail allowed.