JUMMA KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE
Through the instant petition, the petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 248 dated 8-8-2001 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after their earlier application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the quantities of narcotics recovered (50 grams of heroin, 1000 grams of Charas, and 180 grams of Charas) from a joint house. The Peshawar High Court held that while the case fell between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the lesser punishment prescribed should be taken into consideration for bail purposes when there is no likelihood of abscondence or tampering with evidence. The court laid down the principle that in narcotics cases involving varying quantities under different clauses, the lesser punishment is considered at the bail stage absent risks of flight or evidence tampering, leading to the acceptance of the bail application.
- Whether the lesser punishment prescribed for an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act can be taken into consideration while deciding a bail application?
- Are accused persons entitled to bail when the recovered narcotic substance falls under clauses carrying varying degrees of punishment and no risk of abscondence or tampering is shown?
- Does a recovery made from a joint house in narcotic cases warrant the denial of post-arrest bail?
- Articles 3 and 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Through the instant petition, the petitioners have sought their release on bail in case F.I.R. No,248, dated 8-8-2001 of Police Station Lakki Marwat registered under Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition Order, 1979 read with section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. Their efforts for such purpose have been proved abortive at the lower forum, vide order, dated 16-8-2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the alleged recovery was a planted one besides made from the joint house of the three brothers. Petitioner No,2 is a school going boy aged about seventeen years and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the accused/petitioners are involved in a heinous offence injurious to the society and the offence with which they are charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And, as such, are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
4. According to the F.I.R., the quantity of narcotics substance recovered from the house of the petitioners was fifty grams heroin, 1000 grams Charas from one place and 180 grams Charas from another place. Section 9 of C.N.S.A. Speaks that under sub-clause (a) thereof, the punishment is upto two years, or with fine, or with both, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance is one hundred grams or less. Clause (b) of the said section entails punishment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds one hundred grams but does not exceed one kilogram and under sub-clause (c) the punishment prescribed is death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which may be upto one million rupees, if the quantity of narcotics, drugs psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceed the limits specified in clause (b). Lastly, in the proviso it is provided that if quantity exceeds ten kilograms, the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life.
5. The case of the petitioners falls between the line under clauses (b) and (c) aforesaid but while disposing of bail application, lesser punishment prescribed for the offence will be taken into consideration in case there is no likelihood of abscondence of the accused and there is no apprehension of the accused tampering with the record. The prosecution has pointed out nothing such while arguing the case. Therefore, without adjudicating upon merits of the case, this application is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, two lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate.
Cited by 1 case
- ABID HUSSAIN Versus State 2008 MLD 678