2018 PCrLJN 85

KHUSH AMDEEN Versus State

Citation2018 PCrLJN 85

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Judge(s)Sahib Khan, C.J. and Malik Haq Nawaz

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- Through the instant petition the petitioner/accused Khush Amadeen son of Abdul Sattar resident of Chillas seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No. 09/2017 of Police Station Juglote registered under section 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997 dated 02.02.2017.

2. The petitioner applied for bail, before the Court of learned Special Judge Gilgit, which was refused vide order dated 28-02 -2017 and being dissatisfied from the order of learned Special Judge Gilgit, the petitioner has approached this Court for concession of bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only 1130 grams "Charas" was recovered from the car of the petitioner during a nakabandi, which was conducted at KKH near Juglote for checking of vehicle. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the case is one of the border line case between sections 9(b) and 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997 and in such like situation the Courts of the Country always lean in favour of grant of bail. The learned counsel further argued that the C.N.S.A., 1997 is a special law and in cases of narcotics only ANF could register a case under the provision of special law and the local Police was not competent to register the FIR under section 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 1997 MLD 1473 (Lahore), 2004 YLR 439 (Peshawar), 2007 MLD 1092 (Karachi), 2008 YLR 351 (Karachi), 2010 PCr.LJ 1087 (Karachi) and 2013 PCr.LJ 1160 (Peshawar), in support of his contention.

4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was caught red handed during a nakabandi and a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from a car bearing No. NCP GLT-6485 and no malice or ill will is attributed to the Police officials who effected the recovery from the petitioner. The Dy. Advocate General contended that trafficking of narcotics is an offence against society and the petitioner does not deserve any concession of bail.

5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case minutely as well as the registration of FIR by the local Police instead of ANF. The controversy regarding registration FIR and its effects has been set at rest in a judgment reported in PLD 1997 Supreme Court 408. Furthermore any irregularity during investigation of the case cannot be called in question, in view of section 156(2), Cr.P.C. However the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a borderline case between sections 9(b) and 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997 is impressive. We without commenting any further on the merits/demerits of the case to avoid to prejudice to either of the parties, we consider the case in hand a borderline case between sections 9(b) and 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997. Therefore, we allow bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (five lac) with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge Gilgit.

6. Disposed of accordingly.

WA/153/GB Bail granted.