MAQSOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with the possession of narcotics, specifically opium, heroin, and charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had previously secured bail from the Sessions Court by concealing the fact that a bail petition was already pending before the High Court, was entitled to retain that bail, and whether he qualified for bail on merits. The Court held that the bail granted by the Sessions Court was obtained through misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, and therefore, it was recalled. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application on merits. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact that an offence is not subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Discretion remains with the court, and those involved in narcotics trafficking are generally not entitled to discretionary relief unless they demonstrate reasonable grounds for further inquiry into their guilt, regardless of their status as first-time offenders.
- Can bail granted by a lower court be recalled if it was obtained through the concealment of a pending bail petition in a higher court?
- Does the fact that an offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the status of being a first-time offender a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in narcotics cases?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Having been arrested in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 244 dated 6-9-2000 of Police Station Sarah of District Sialkot after 350 grams of Opium; 20 grams of Herion and 150 grams Charas was allegedly recovered from his possession, the petitioner submitted a petition in the Court of Session for his release on bail which petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Daska on 6-10-2000., The petitioner then moved this Court: through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6396-B of 2000, for the same relief in which petition notice was issued to the State on,31-10-2000. When this petition came up for final disposal on 16-4-2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not present but some indication was given by the Police Officer, who had come with record, that the petitioner had since been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot. We asked for a report from the learned Sessions Judge and it then transpired that on his visit to District Jail of Sialkot on 14-12-2000, eighty-six under trial prisoners including Maqsood Ahmad petitioner had submitted applications to him for their release on bail. The petitioner has mentioned in the said application that he was a poor man and could not afford to engage a counsel, therefore, he be released on personal bonds. As has been notices above, through order dated 14-IZ-2000, the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot directed the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs:5.000.
2. The petitioner had thus, obviously misled the learned Sessions Judge into passing the said order because the petitioner had intentionally concealed the fact of his having moved this Court for his release on bail and the consequent pendency of his said bail petition before this Court.
3. Since the petitioner had secured the said bail from the learned Sessions Judge through concealment of facts and misrepresentation, therefore, the said bail so allowed- to him through the abovementioned order dated 14-12-2000 of the learned Sessions Judge-is recalled. He is already in the custody in pursuance of the warrants issued by this Court for his arrest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now canvasses bail for the petitioner, from this Court, on- the ground that the petitioner was a first offender and that his case was not hit by the prohibition contained either in section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C. Or the one contained in section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
45. The mere fact that an offence was not hit by the abovementioned prohibition never meant that the said offence had become a bailable offence. Discretion still remains with the competent Court to consider and decide whether a person accused of such an offence did or did not qualify for his release oil bail. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the persons who were allegedly involved in spreading the deadly poison i.e. The narcotics, in our society were not worthy of grant of any discretionary relief and their consequent release on bail, sinless they could demonstrate that they had a right to be released on bail by satisfying this Court that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that such an accused person had committed the offence alleged against him and that there were sufficient grounds for further enquiring into his guilt. The submission that the accused person was a first offender was hardly relevant for the grant of bail in such-like cases.
6. Nothing could be offered on behalf of the petitioner to satisfy the above noticed requirements of section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed.
7. The petitioner shall now be lodged in jail as an under trial prisoner.