MOMAN HUSSAIN KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Moman Hussain Khan, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 and Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The prosecution alleged that 500 grams of Charas were recovered from the petitioner during a vehicle search. The petitioner sought bail on grounds including the lack of authority of the C.I.A. staff to effect recovery, the absence of a criminal history, the assertion that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the delay in trial proceedings. The State opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the crime and the risk of abscondence. The Court observed that the trial had already commenced and charges had been framed. Declining to comment on the merits to avoid prejudice, the Court held that reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking, and consequently dismissed the bail petition.
- Does the recovery of narcotics from a petitioner during a vehicle search constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail when the trial has already commenced?
- Is bail appropriate when the offense charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 but the trial is underway?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 80, dated 28-3-2001, under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 read with section 9-B, of C.N.S.A. 1997, Police Station, Old Kotwali. Multan, registered on the statement of Mushtaq Ahmad, Inspector, CIA, Multan wherein the prosecution story is that on the fateful day and time on a general hold up Car No,8192/LOK was stopped at a point and on personal search of the petitioner and three others who were riding the said car, Charas weighing 500 grams was recovered from the petitioner.
Front the remaining three also chants weighing differently was recovered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that the recovery was effected by C.I.A., Staff which has no power to do that, that there is no previous history of the drug paddling in so far as petitioner is concerned, that the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 10 months and the trial is not in sight.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by learned counsel for the State opposed the petition by submitting that it is heinous offence, that the petitioner alongwith three others were taking Charas for sale which shows that they indulged in the heinous crime, that there are chances of petitioner's absconcion and that no case for bail at this stage is made out.
4. Heard.
5. On Court query learned counsel for the petitioner confirms that the charge has been framed and the case has been set down for recording of prosecution evidence for 13-2-2002. We would not like to comment on the merits of the prosecution case left it may prejudice the case of either side; surface it to say since the Charas as alleged in the F,I.R. was recovered from the petitioner and three others, there are reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner indulged in the business of drug paddling and the trial has already commenced. In the aforereferred circumstances no case for bail is made out. Dismissed.