NADEEM Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Nadeem seeking bail in case F.I.R No. 300 dated 18-9-2006 registered under section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Kharianwala, District Gujrat, after the same was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for bail, observing that the recovered quantity of 560 grams of Charas did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner had no criminal history, investigation was complete with no requirement for further detention, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and further detention would serve no useful purpose, bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the recovered quantity of narcotics does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment in the absence of abscondence or tampering with evidence?
- Does the lack of probability of the conclusion of the trial in the near future constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN; J.--- Petitioner was refused post-arrest bail in case against him vide F.I.R No-300 dated 18-9-2006 under section 9-B of C.N.S.A., 1997, registered with police station Kharianwala, District Gujrat, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16-10-2006. He, thereafter, filed instant petition, for the same relief.
2. Charge against the petitioner is that police patrolling party on spy information, apprehended the petitioner and on his search, Charas weighing 560 grams was recovered from his possession. Petitioner after remaining on physical remand, has since been remitted to judicial lock-up.
3. We have-heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Allegation of involvement of the petitioner in sale of narcotics is not supported by any evidence with the prosecution and., at the same time, no prospective .purchaser was named or arrested at the time of his arrest. He has no criminal history to his credit, as he is not involved in any other alike case. Meagre quantity of 560 grams of Charas recovered from the petitioner, would not make him transporter/trafficker of the contraband and he did not lead to any further recovery in spite of remaining on physical remand. Challan was submitted on 4-10-2006 but even charge against the petitioner has not been framed and there is no probability of conclusion of the trial in near future. Petitioner ties already faced detention of about five months and his person, is no more required for investigation purposes. Further detention of the petitioner would not advance prosecution case, any more. The offence charged falls under section 9-B C. N.S.A.,1997, which is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C. In absence of any allegation of abscondence or tampering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail is not to be withheld as of punishment. He would face the sentence ultimately convicted by the trial Court.
4. For the reasons .noted above; petitioner has made out a case for his post--arrest bail, in the case against him, pending -its trial. This petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q/N-41/L Bail allowed.