AKHTAR Versus State

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.--- Accused/Petitioner Akhtar son of Gohar Taj facing the charge in case F.I.R. No. 243 dated 22-10-2013 registered at Police Station, Kalu Khan District Swabi under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge Special Court, Swabi vide his order dated 4-11-2013. Now he has moved this petition for his release on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22-10-2013 at 10-00 hours Fazal Amin Khan A.S.-I. along with his Police contingents while on gasht at the spot received information that petitioner is busy in selling narcotic at Mohallah Palrah Kalu Khan on which he rushed to the spot where on seeing the police party the accused tried to escape but he was chased and overpowered having a plastic bag in his hand containing two packets of Charas weighing two Kilograms which was recovered from petitioner and taken into possession. He was arrested on the spot and present case was registered against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that two Kilograms of contraband Charas has allegedly been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner but he is neither a previous convict nor involved in such like offence and this Court in similar cases up to recovery of four Kilograms contraband has consistently allowed bail to accused keeping in view the quantity of contraband recovered, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail.

4. Learned State counsel opposed the bail to the petitioner on the ground that two Kilograms Charas has been recovered from the immediate possession of the petitioner and FSL report in respect of the contraband is also in positive, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled the concession of bail as the offence is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case I have come to the conclusion that it is the consistent view of this Court that for the purpose of bail in such like offences the quantity of contraband and the expected quantum of punishment to be awarded at the trial has to be taken into account while allowing bail to the accused persons. As punishment for contraband of less than ten kilograms is up to fourteen years, therefore, keeping in view the recovered contraband the petitioner is not likely to be awarded punishment for more than two years and the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required to the Investigating Agency. He is also neither a previous convict nor involved in such like offences.

6. Resultantly, this bail application is accepted and the accused-petitioner is allowed bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.

The above are the reasons of my short order announced on 2-12-2013.

HBT/13/P Bail granted.