PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 210
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
GHULAM SHABBIR--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 2639-B of 2023, decided on 15.5.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, (XXV of 1997), S. 51--Bail after arrest, grant of--Allegation of--Recovery of charas--Quantity of Charas, i.e. 320 grams, has brought case of present petitioner within mischief of Section 9(1), entry No. 3 of Column No. (1),entry (c) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of TABLE given under Section 9(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022--It has been mentioned in FIR that above mentioned “Charas” was contained in a plastic bag at time of alleged recovery--It will be determined, after recording of evidence, that what was net weight of allegedly recovered “Charas” and as to whether case of petitioner falls under Section 9(1), entry No. 3 of Column No. (1), entry (b) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of TABLE given under Section 9(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022 or it comes under ambit of Section 9(1),entry No. 3 of Column No. (1), entry (c) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of TABLE given under Section 9(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022--Bail accepted.
[Para 4] A
2016 SCMR 1424, PLJ 2018 SC 812 & PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1303.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Rehman, Additional Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 15.5.2023.
Order
Through the instant petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., read with Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the petitioner, namely Ghulam Shabbir seeks post-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 38 of 2023 dated 26.01.2023, registered in respect of an offence under Section 9(1),entry No. 3 of Column No. (1), entry (c) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of the TABLE given under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022 at Police Station City Taunsa Sharif, District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. As per record, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 26.01.2023, he was apprehended by the police and 1320 grams of “Charas” was allegedly recovered from his possession.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. Obviously, a quantity of Charas, i.c.320 grams, has brought the case of the present petitioner within the mischief of Section 9(1), entry No. 3 of Column No. (1),entry (c) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of the TABLE given under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the above mentioned “Charas” was contained in a plastic bag at the time of alleged recovery. It will be determined, after recording of the evidence, that what was the net weight of the allegedly recovered “Charas” and as to whether the case of the petitioner falls under Section 9(1), entry No. 3 of Column No. (1), entry (b) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of the TABLE given under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022 or it comes under the ambit of Section 9(1), entry No. 3 of Column No. (1), entry (c) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of the TABLE given under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022. Reliance is placed on the case of Ateeb-ur-Rehman @ Atti Mochi versus The State and others (2016 SCMR 1424) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab and perusing the material available on record, we have noticed that when the petitioner was apprehended, 1014 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from a shopper bag which he was carrying in his right hand. On Court query, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, after going through the recovery memo available on the file of police record could not show that the recovered heroin was weighed along with the polythene bag or otherwise. If the recovered heroin was weighed along with the polythene bag. Prima facie, the weight of the heroin without the polythene bag, if weighed, might have come to 1000 grams or less than that and in that eventuality, the case of the present petitioner would have fallen within the ambit of Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. 1997. In this backdrop, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further enquiry falling within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Reliance is also placed on the case of “Saeed Ahmed vs. State through P.G.Punjab and another” (PLJ 2018 SC 812) and the case of “Wajid Nawaz vs. State and another” (PLJ 2021 Cr.C 1303). The learned Additional Prosecutor General states that the petitioner is not involved in other case related to the same offence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 900,000/-(Rupees nine hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit. Additionally, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf causes delay in the conclusion of the trial or if the petitioner misuses the concession of bail in any manner or if the petitioner absents himself from the learned trial Court, then the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with the law.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments