ABDUL JABBAR Versus State Saif ul Haq, Zia,
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Jabbar, who was charged under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 700 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the circumstances of the case. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to prior enmity with individuals who influenced the local police and noted that he had been incarcerated for over four months. The State opposed the application, citing the nature of the offence and the recovery. The Court held that since the offence under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 51 of the same Act, and given that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, the case warranted the grant of bail. The Court established the principle that where an offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of the relevant narcotics legislation, bail should be granted if the accused is no longer required for further investigation.
- Does the recovery of 700 grams of charas under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 51 of the same Act?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they are no longer required for further investigation and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Abdul Jabbar petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.46, dated 21-3-2010, registered under section 9-B of the C.N.S.A., 1997 at Police Statoin Jandanwala District Bhakkar.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner, as per F.I.R., are that on the day of occurrence the police raiding party on a spy information over powered the petitioner and on his personal search 700 grams charas along with Rs.200 was recovered from his possession.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case and the recovery is planted one for the reason that the petitioner got F.I.R., No.247 registered at the same Police Station against Sanaullah, Saifullah and Nasrullah and in order to take revenge of that F.I.R. they connived with the local police being influential persons and the police falsely and with mala fide intention implicated the petitioner in this case; that the statement of Sharif the alleged witness of the recovery has not been recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C., which makes the prosecution story doubtful; that the petitioner is previous non-convict; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than four months and is no more required for the purpose of investigation, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail as his case falls within the purview of further inquiry.
4. Learned D.P.-G. opposes this bail application on the ground that 700 grams charas was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the offence with which the petitioner is liable to be charged entail seven years punishment, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record. The perusal of the F.I.R. shows that 700 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he is liable to be tried under section 9-B of the C.N.S.A., 1997, as such, his case does not fall within the prohibition contained in section 51 of the Act ibid. He is behind the bars for the last four months and is not required by the police four further investigation. In such circumstances, we find it a fit case for the grant of bail. This petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-211/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.