ALLAH RAKHA vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 189 registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition Order IV of 1979 read with section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of 495 grams of Charas. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail keeping in view the alleged recovery and his previous criminal record involving multiple narcotics and other criminal cases. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, having a consistent history of involvement in previous criminal and narcotics cases and given the recovery from his possession, is not entitled to discretionary relief of bail. The application was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that previous criminal involvement in similar heinous or narcotics offences disentitles an accused to the grant of discretionary relief of bail, notwithstanding other general contentions.
- Whether an accused person with a previous criminal record of involvement in narcotics cases is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of 495 grams of Charas along with past criminal history disentitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.189 registered on 2-5-2003 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition Order IV of 1979 read with section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station, Ghalla Mandi, District Sahiwal. The allegation against the petitioner is that when was apprehended- by the police party, he was found in possession of 495 Grams of Charas.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was earlier involved in case F.I.R.
No.46 of 2002, dated 14-2-2002 registered under sections 324, 353, 186, P.P.C. Read with section 16, M.P.O. The petitioner moved an application for bail before arrest which was accepted on 30-4-2003 and this case has been registered by the police due to this reason as the brother of the petitioner filed writ petition in this Court against the S.H.O. Of Police Station, Ghalla Mandi and other police officers on 11-3-2002. He further contends that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Also contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 22-5-2003 and report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has not been submitted against the petitioner so far.
3. On the other hand learned counsel opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner has previous record. He was involved in five cases other than the cases mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is not entitled to the grant of bail as huge quantity of Charas has been recovered from him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. As the huge quantity of Charas was recovered from the petitioner and he is previously involved in five criminal cases. Case F.I.R. No.613 of 1998 was registered against the petitioner on 18-11-1998 under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance. He was also involved in case F.I.R. No.510 of 1998 registered on 26-9- 1998 under Article 3/4 of Prohibition Order IV of 1979 as 1200 tablets of marfine were recovered from his possession. The petitioner was also involved in case F.I.R. No.2 of 1994 registered on 4-2-1994 under sections 420 and 407 of Railways Act. He is also an accused in case F.I.R. No.29 of 1989 registered on 10-7-1989 under section 324, P.P.C. Read with section 120 of Railways Act. He was also accused in case F.I.R. No.380 of 2001, dated 9-12-2001 registered under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition Order IV of 1979 as 2800 tablets of marine were recovered from his possession. The previous record of the petitioner shows that he had been involved in narcotics cases and is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
5. For the foregoing reasons this application has no merit and is dismissed.