Mst. ROBINA KAUSAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by a female accused in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 1500 grams of Charas. The petitioner sought bail on grounds including the non-compliance with search warrant requirements, the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report, and her status as a mother with a suckling infant in jail. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on her gender, the presence of a suckling child, and alleged procedural irregularities in the recovery process. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage, distinguishing the cited precedents as inapplicable to the current facts. The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for a relatively short duration compared to the cited authorities and that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of discretion in her favor. The principle laid down is that bail in narcotics cases involving female accused is not automatic and remains subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, particularly regarding the duration of incarceration and the applicability of cited precedents.
- Does the presence of a suckling child automatically entitle a female accused to post-arrest bail in a narcotics case?
- Is the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient grounds for bail in a narcotics case at the pre-trial stage?
- Can a bail petition be dismissed if the duration of incarceration is significantly shorter than in cited precedents relied upon by the petitioner?
- Section 9, 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
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,231 of 2001, dated 1-6-2001 under section 9 of C.N.S.A., 1997 read with Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979).
2. Briefly stated the facts are that during the investigation of case pertaining to F.I.R. No,230 of 2001 the accused/petitioner led to the recovery of narcotics weighing 1500 grams Charas. The petitioner applied for bail, which was refused by the learned A.S.-I., Bahawalptir vide order, dated 19-6-2001.
Hence the instant petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Prosecutor for the State.
4. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to the registration of this case, F.I.R.
No,230 of 2001 was registered for the recovery of 300 grams heroin, 8 Kgs. Charas and 1 Kg. Opium, that the said F.I.R. Was registered against Mehmood alias Mooda husband of the petitioner, Tariq Latif a brother of the petitioner as well as the petitioner, that the petitioner is on bail in the said case, that the instant case has been registered against the petitioner although there could be only one case even if the alleged recovery had been made at the instance of the present petitioner. He further contends that the very raid is not warranted by law as no search warrant was obtained by the raiding officer. He further contends that the report of Chemical Examiner has not so far been received and the petitioner is in jail since her arrest and has also given birth to a child, that petitioner being detained in jail with a suckling baby is entitled to the relief of bail and has placed reliance upon Mst. Nusrat v. The State 1996 SCM R 973. In support of his contention regarding non- compliance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance upon Muhammad Mansha v.
The State 1995 SCM R 1414. He thus submits that case of the petitioner requires further probe, as such she may be admitted to bail.
5. Conversely bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
6. As per prosecution version, 1500 grams Charas has been recovered at the instance of petitioner.
The bail is being sought mainly on the grounds that she is a lady and has given birth to a child as well as non-observance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Both the aforementioned authorities have been produced in support of said contentions. So far as 1995 SCM R 973 is concerned, no doubt the relief of bail has been granted but that has been granted after more than 8 months of the arrest on 1-6-2001 and is in jail for the last two months and seven days. Thus the facts in hand are not identical to the facts of the said authority. So far as 1995 SCM R 1414 is concerned that is also distinguishable as the said authority relates to final disposal of the case. Thus both the authorities do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. It is also fact that co-accused of the petitioner i,e, her husband is still on pre-arrest bail. Keeping in view the attending circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, this order shall not debar the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of her grievance.
Cited by 2 cases
- YOUSIF KHAN vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 329
- Mst. NUSRAT alias PATHANI vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 1293