--Bail, grant of---Challenge to--Recovery of charas wrapped in shopper---S. 497(2)--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)-

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1097

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(2)--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Recovery of charas wrapped in shopper--Occurrence was narrated way it happened and, had police any grudge against petitioner, would not be registered and that petitioner was under lawful custody when he led to recovery of narcotics substance--However, this argument may be addressed by trial Court after record of evidence but at present it is not denied that petitioner had led to recovery of narcotics during police custody and that no reason to prepare a discharge report in said FIR was given except that no incriminating material was found against him--Obviously, he was apprehended under Section 54, Cr.P.C. due to suspicion in absence of any statement of complainant or witness and, therefore, no incriminating material was found against him--The prosecution case is that petitioner has voluntarily led to recovery of narcotics from his own rented house but fact remains that recovery was effected from a private place which was not a part of raid and search warrant was also not issued against petitioner--Importantly, place of recovery is inside house but no independent witness was associated in recovery proceedings despite fact that it was a populated area--Significantly, if narcotics substance was recovered on 28.08.2020 as per case diary its recovery should have been mentioned same day but in present FIR it was mentioned at 1.15 a.m, of following night-- Case of petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., notwithstanding positive report of Chemical Examiner-- Application is allowed.      [Pp. 1098] A & B

Mr. Kamran Javed Malik, advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Samad, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab for State.

Date of hearing: 29.12.2020

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1097
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Ali Baqar Najafi, J.
IMRAN FAAZAL--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 64321-B of 2020, decided on 29.12.2020.

Order

The petitioner seeks, post arrest bail in case-FIR No. 1089/2020, dated 29.08.2020 under Section 9-C of CNSA, 1997, registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, District Gujranwala on the allegation that the petitioner during investigation of case FIR No. 868/2020 got recovered Charas wrapped in a shopper bag weighing 2210 grams from the iron lying under the clothes.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab and perusing the record, it is straightaway observed that the petitioner was apprehended in case-FIR No. 868/2020, dated 13.07.2020, registered under Section 392, PPC at Police Station Peoples Colony, District Gujranwala and although was discharged in the said case on 29.08.2020 with the orders of learned Magistrate concerned yet in the discharge report it was not mentioned that the petitioner had led to the recovery of 2210 grams of charas at 1.15 a.m., the same day from his own rented house and that the present FIR was registered against him. The argument advanced by the learned Prosecutor is that the occurrence was narrated the way it happened and, had the police any grudge against the petitioner, the FIR No. 868/2020 would not have been registered and that the petitioner was under the lawful custody when he led to the recovery of narcotics substance. However, this argument may be addressed by the learned trial Court after record of the evidence but at present it is not denied that the petitioner had led to the recovery of narcotics during the police custody and that no reason to prepare a discharge report in the said FIR was given except that no incriminating material was found against him. Obviously, he was apprehended under Section 54, Cr.P.C. due to suspicion in absence of any statement of complainant or witness and, therefore, no incriminating material was found against him. The prosecution case is that the petitioner has voluntarily led to the recovery of narcotics from his own rented house but the fact remains that the recovery was effected from a private place which was not a part of raid and the search warrant was also not issued against the petitioner. Importantly, the place of recovery is inside the house but no independent witness was associated in the recovery proceedings despite the fact that it was a populated area. Significantly, if the narcotics substance was recovered on 28.08.2020 as per case Diary No. 4 dated 28.08.2020, its recovery should have been mentioned on the same day but in the present FIR it was mentioned at 1.15 a.m, of the following night.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the positive report of the Chemical

Examiner. Resultantly, this application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed