SABIR HUSSAIN Versus State
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Sabir Hussain booked under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No. 02/2019 registered at Police Station ANF Gilgit, following the alleged recovery of 2700 grams of charas "Garda". The core legal question was whether the alleged recovery of charas "Garda" falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and warrants the grant of bail. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that charas "Garda" is not charas in the strict sense as it requires chemical extraction, and thus the exact quantity of narcotics extracted remains open to question, bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497, Criminal Procedure Code 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the categorization and exact quantity of charas "Garda" involve a determination requiring further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.
- Does the alleged recovery of charas "Garda" bring a case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether charas "Garda" constitutes charas for the purpose of attracting the maximum penalties under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- When can a case be considered one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- ANF Police booked the petitioner in the offence under section 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997 vide FIR No. 02/2019 dated 23-01-2019 registered at Police Station, ANF Gilgit.
2. Post arrest bail of the petitioner was refused by the learned vacation Judge Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 04-02-2019.
3. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for concession of bail on multiple grounds, which could be summarized as under:
(i) The case is false and the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case.
(ii) ANF Police was having spy information but did not associate any independent witness in the recovery proceedings.
(iii) The charas "Garda" has been allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which does not come with the definition of "Narcotics".
(iv) The petitioner is first offender, previous non convict and no more required for the purpose of investigations.
(v) There is no chance that petitioner if released will either abscond or will tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(vi) A very small quantity of narcotics has been sent to expert and even a positive report will not bring the case within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand the learned Special Prosecutor ANP vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was arrested by ANF official on a spy information and a huge quantity of charas "Garda" has been recovered from his possession. The cases under section 9(c) entails capital punishment and the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. As alleged in the FIR, 2700 grams of charas "Garda" have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. This Court in two earlier judgments passed in Cr. Misc. No.29/2018 titled Sher Muhammad v. The State and Cr. Misc. No.25/2019 titled Mazhar ul Haq v. The State have held that the charas "Garda" is not the charas and the charas is extracted after baking/chemical process and each and every stuff of charas "Garda" will vary about the quantity of charas, which will be extracted from the stuff, which brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,0000/- (ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge at Gilgit.
MQ/4-GB Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- Hadi Ur Rehman vs The State 2022 YLR 422