ABDUL REHMAN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the alleged recovery of 255 grams of Charas and cash from his possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of the contraband recovered and the absence of evidence regarding the sale of the narcotics. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the quantity of Charas recovered did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law, there was no evidence on record to substantiate the allegation of sale, and the petitioner was a first-time offender with no prior criminal record. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted, rendering further incarceration unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that where the quantity of narcotics recovered does not trigger the prohibitory clause and there is no evidence of sale, bail should generally be granted to a first-time offender after the investigation is complete.
- Does the recovery of 255 grams of Charas fall within the prohibitory clause of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Is a first-time offender entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted?
- Can bail be granted in narcotics cases where there is no evidence of the sale of the contraband?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.-- -The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.132, dated 28-4-2005 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at P.S. Sarai Sadhu District Khanewal.
2. Briefly stated that facts as contained in the F.I.R. are that Abdul Majeed, A.S.-I. P.S. Sarai Sidhu along with other police officials for the purpose of patrolling were present at the Adda Chupar Natta where he received the spy information that a person was selling Charas while riding upon a motorcycle near Bridge Canal Shujjabad Link. Upon the information the raid was conducted and the petitioner was arrested along with his motorcycle at the Bridge Canal Shujjabad link and upon his personal search 255 grams Charas was recovered from his possession and sale price of Rs.500 was recovered from him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence of sale of Charas; that quantum of alleged recovery does not put the case of the petitioner in the prohibitory clause and in this behalf he has relied upon Zafar Iqbal v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 678) and that the petitioner is a previous non-convict and has no record and in this behalf he has relied upon Zakir Ali v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1670).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. he has been found guilty during investigation.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. No evidence of sale of Charas has been brought on record. Qauntum of alleged recovery of Charas does not put the case of the petitioner in the prohibitory clause. The petitioner is a previous non-convict. The petitioner was arrested on 28-4-2005. Investigation is complete and challan has been submitted in the Court. No useful purpose will be served to put the petitioner behind the bars, indefinitely in this view of the matter, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-1/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.