2018 YLRN 19

EHSANULLAH Versus State

Citation2018 YLRN 19

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

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

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioner was booked for the offences under section 9(c) CNSA 1997 vide FIR No.05/2017 Police Station Pari Bunglow District Gilgit on the complaint of HC Mir Subhan.

2. The petitioner applied for bail in the Court of the learned Special Judge Gilgit, which was refused vide order dated 15-03-2017 and being not satisfied from the order of learned Special Judge Gilgit the petitioner has approached to this Court for concession of bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is false and the petitioner has been booked maliciously. The learned counsel contended that the FIR of the instant case has been lodged by the local Police which by itself is illegal and without lawful authority. The learned counsel further contended that the quantity of alleged Narcotic recovered from the petitioner has been shown 1000 gram thus the case of petitioner falls under section 9(b) CNSA 1997 which even otherwise entails 7 years punishment and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of 497(1), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2008 PCr.LJ 1447 (Karachi), 2008 PCr.LJ 1449 (Peshawar) and 2014 YLR 632 (Sindh) in support of his contention.

4. The learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was caught red handed while travelling in an NCP car bearing No. NCP DMR-01-1646 and a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from his possession. Per Dy. Advocate General there is a strong prima facie case established against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, we are of the opinion that only 1000 gram of "Charas" alleged to have been 'recovered from the possession of the petitioner which apparently falls under section 9(b) of CNSA 1997 and not under section 9(c) CNSA 1997. The punishment provided for the offences under section 9 (b) CNSA 1997 is only 7 years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.P.C. 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/152/GB Bail granted.