FARHAD ALI vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Through this petition Farhad Ali petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,22 registered at Police Station City, Kamoke, District Gujranwala on 20-1-2003 for offences under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. During the investigation section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was added to the F.I.R.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have noticed that a raiding police party had apprehended the petitioner and had recovered 110 Kilograms of "Post/Bhiki" from his possession. A report has already been received from the Chemical Examiner and the same is in the positive in respect of the sample of the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner's possession. The petitioner is a resident of a tribal area in the North-West Frontier Province and apparently there is nothing available on the record to explain his presence in District Gujranwala at the relevant time. According to the prosecution the petitioner deals with narcotics which he brings from the tribal area and sells the same in various settled areas. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any background of or bitterness between the petitioner and the local police so as to prompt the latter to falsely implicate the former in a case of this nature. After having become convinced of the petitioner's guilt the local police have already submitted a challan against the petitioner before the Court of competent jurisdiction. An offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 entails a maximum sentence of death and, thus, the provisions of section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 place an embargo upon grant of bail in such cases. No special circumstance has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to depart from the said legal requirement and to rely upon the inherent or Constitutional jurisdiction of this. Court for granting bail to the petitioner.

3. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that "Post/Bhiki" is not a contraband substance as the same does not find a mention in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The learned Additional Advocate-General has, however, pointed out that "Post/Bhiki" is one of the somniferous poison (opioids) which is a part of "poppy straw" from which morphine is extracted. It has also been pointed out by him that "poppy straw" is a narcotic substance as is evident from the provisions of section 2(t), (u), (v) and (w) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. In this regard he has also placed reliance upon Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxocology, Tailor's Handbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxocology, Tailor's Textbook of Pharmacognasy and Various Conventions adopted by the United Nations. In view of the said material produced before us by the learned Additional Advocate- General we have entertained no doubt that "Post/Bhiki" is a narcotic substance within the meaning of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

4. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.