DILDAR Versus State Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Sessions Judge in a case registered under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the alleged recovery of 140 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity recovered and the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the meagre quantity of 140 grams recovered from the petitioner, who was a petty street hawker and an addict without prior criminal history, did not make him a trafficker and that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the court noted that his further detention was unnecessary for investigation, trial had not commenced, and bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment. The petition was consequently allowed, and bail was granted subject to the furnishing of appropriate sureties.
- Whether recovery of a meagre quantity of narcotics from an alleged addict warrants post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in the circumstances of this case?
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the trial has not commenced and the accused's further detention is not required for investigation?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner was refused post-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 4-3-2006 in case vide F.I.R. No.30 dated 18-2-2006 under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; registered with Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab. He has now filed instant petition for the same relief.
2. Charge against the petitioner is that he was intercepted by the police patrol party and on search, Charas weighing 140 grams was recovered from his pocket. Petitioner was arrested and after remaining on physical remand has since been remitted to the judicial lock-up.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Undisputedly the petitioner is a petty street hawker and is addict of Charas but has no criminal history to his credit, as he was not earlier involved in any alike case. Meagre quantity of Charas weighing 140 grams allegedly recovered from the petitioner would not make him trafficker/transporter of narcotics and he himself being addict, must have kept such quantity for his own consumption. There is no allegation of sale of Charas by the petitioner as no purchaser was arrested by the police along him. Petitioner remained on physical remand but nothing except the above-referred Charas, was recovered from him. Person of the petitioner is 'no more needed for investigation purposes and his further detention would not advice prosecution case, any more. The offence charged' is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In spite of submission of challan, trial of the case has not commenced and there is no probability of its conclusion in near future. 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 and he will face the sentence, if ultimately convicted by the Trial Court at the time of conclusion of the case.
4. For the reason 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.
H.B.T./D-12/L Bail granted.