MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State
The petitioner, Muhammad Riaz, sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, in a case involving the recovery of 500 grams of Charas. The petitioner was charged under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 21(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the association of independent witnesses during recovery, were violated. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's direct involvement. The Court observed that the investigation was nearly complete, the petitioner was not required for further investigation, and he had no prior convictions. The Court held that the issues of whether the search violated Section 21 of the Act and whether the quantity of recovered contraband attracted the prohibitory clause were matters requiring further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, entitling him to the concession of bail.
- Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during recovery proceedings in a narcotics case constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is a previous non-convict?
- Does the recovery of 500 grams of Charas necessarily preclude the grant of bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 21, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 21(2), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Muhammad Riaz petitioner involved in case F.I.R. No.653 dated 21‑10‑2004 registered under Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9 of Control of Narcotics Substances Act at Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan has moved instant application seeking his release on bail on refusal of the same by learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan vide his order, dated 2‑11‑2004. The petitioner is accused of having been found in possession of 500 grams Charas.
2. Mr. Muhammad Wahid Anjum, Advocate for the petitioner in support of bail application contended that formalities of section 21(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have been seriously violated that despite advance information no independent and disinterested witness has been associated with recovery proceedings and that keeping in view the quantity of recovered contraband. Petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail. In this respect, reliance has been placed on State through A.‑G. Sindh Karachi v. Hemjoo 2003 SCMR 881, Noor Ali Khan v. The State and another 2003 MLD 1637 (Peshawar), Zarful v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1392 (Peshawar); unreported judgment of this Court dated 2‑7‑2004 in Cr.M.B. No. 193 of 2004 and another unreported judgment of this Court dated 8‑11‑2004 in Cr.M.B. No.302 of 2004.
4. Mr. Ehsanul Haq Malik, Advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner stands directly involved in the F.I.R. for possessing Charas and he has rightly been refused the concession of bail.
5. The petitioner is in jail ever since his arrest on 21‑10‑2004. Investigation of the case is almost complete and petitioner is no more required for further investigation. He is stated to be previous non‑convict and this fact has not been denied by the opposite side. Whether search was conducted in contravention of the provisions contained in section 21 of the Act and whether in. view of the quantum of the substance recovered, the petitioner can be awarded a sentence attracting prohibitory clause are the question which require further inquiry. The application is accepted and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in a sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.
H.B.T./277/P Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- Miss BUSHRA SHAHEEN and another vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 820