ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 370 of 1998, registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following his apprehension by police. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the duration of his incarceration and the nature of the evidence against him. The petitioner had been in custody for over six months without the trial concluding. While the prosecution alleged possession of narcotics and liquor, the petitioner argued that the bulk of the recovered liquor belonged to his son and that he was only personally found with two small bottles of liquor, which were not proven to be for sale. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the delay in the trial process and that the ownership of the bulk recovery remained a matter for further inquiry. The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention without trial progress justifies the grant of bail, provided the accused furnishes the required security.
- Does the prolonged detention of an accused without the conclusion of trial constitute valid grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is the ownership of recovered contraband a matter of further inquiry when disputed by the accused in a bail application?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,370 of 1998, dated 16-6-1998 registered against him and another with Police Station Phoolnagar, District Kasur, for an offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9/4/43/97 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on secret information police came to his house. He was found standing outside his house with another person. On seeing the police party, co-accused of the petitioner threw a shopping bag and ran away. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot.
From his personal search, two small bottles of liquor were recovered from the Dab of his Dhauti.
From the bag thrown by co-accused of the petitioner 40 grams heroin and 55 grams Charas were recovered. Police also recovered 400 small bottles of, liquor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 16-6-1998.
Investigation is complete and challan has since been submitted in Court. The petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation any more. The learned counsel further contends that only recovery from the petitioner is of two small bottles of liquor. As far as 400 small bottles are concerned, those belong to the petitioner's son and he has nothing to do with them. Contentions vehemently opposed.
4. We have heard both sides and gone through the file. It has been more than six months since the petitioner was taken into custody but the trial has not been concluded till today. The petitioner was found in possession of two small bottles of liquor. It is not even in the evidence that they were meant for sale. The contention of the learned counsel that 400 small bottles of liquor recovered from his house belong to his son is a matter of further inquiry. Therefore, we accept the petition and allow bail to the petitioner provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- AZEEM KHAN Versus State 2019 YLRN 66