LIAQUAT ALI vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 1.2 kilograms of heroin, registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner challenged the prosecution's case on grounds of procedural irregularity, specifically alleging non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the absence of local witnesses during the recovery, and questioning the authority of the police to investigate under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the provisions of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, were expressly excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Finding that a significant quantity of narcotics was recovered and that reasonable grounds existed for the petitioner's involvement in the offence, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The bail application was consequently dismissed.
- Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to recoveries made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks the grant of bail in case F.I.R. No,181 of 1998, dated 22-5-1998 under section 9- C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to the prosecution case, a police party, on a spy information, apprehended the petitioner and heroin weighing one Kilogram and 200 grams was recovered from the shopping bag which the petitioner was carrying.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that only 1 gram heroin was set to the Chemical Examiner. It was further submitted that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Had been violated inasmuch as no respectable of the locality was associated to witness the alleged recovery. It was further argued that only the Anti-Narcotics Force constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could arrest, investigate and prosecute the petitioner. The contentions were opposed by the learned State Counsel.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Huge quantity of heroin was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. No mala fide was shown to exist. The provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were not, prima facie, attracted inasmuch as the application thereof was specifically excluded by virtue section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
Reasonable grounds exist for the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence falling within the prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail application fails and is dismissed.