Mst. IRSHAD alias Mst. WAZIRAN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail application filed by Mst. Irshad alias Mst. Waziran in respect of F.I.R. No. 907 of 1998 registered under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act at Police Station City Muzaffargarh, following the alleged recovery of one kilo of opium from her possession. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, she is a woman, and she has a nursing infant. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, she is a female accused, and her detention in jail would be detrimental to her suckling child. The court consequently allowed the bail application subject to furnishing appropriate security.
- Whether a female accused charged under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act is entitled to bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the presence of a milk-suckling baby constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail to a female petitioner?
- Can bail be granted where the prosecution fails to establish any other pending criminal cases against the specific petitioner, notwithstanding cases pending against her family members?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Bail is sought in case F.I.R. No,907 of 1998, dated 6-12-1998 under section 9-C (should be 9-B) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, registered with Police Station, City Muzaffargarh.
2. Prosecution version is that the petitioner was apprehended and from her possession one kilo opium was recovered:
3. Additional Sessions Judge, Kot Addu Camp at Muzaffargarh refused the bail application on 4-2- 1999.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that maximum imprisonment provided under section 9- B of the Act is seven years. Further, states that the petitioner has a milk suckling baby of about 1-1/2 years and it is highly detrimental to the health of the child to be detained in jail where the atmosphere is not congenial for her proper bringing up.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the husband, father and mother of the petitioner also deal with narcotics and number of cases are pending against them. He has been unable to state whether any other case is registered against the petitioner.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Since the petitioner is a lady, offence levelled against her does not fall within the prohibitory clause and she has a milk suckling baby, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail provided she furnish security in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- RAWAIDAH BIBI vs The STATE and others 2014 MLD 7
- RWAIDAH BIBI vs The STATE and others 2014 MLD 284