PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 203
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
ALI NAWAZ--Petitioner
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 28421-B of 2024, decided on 24.6.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
- پوسٹ گرفتاری ضمانت ، کی منظوری-- بدنیتی کی وجہ سے منشیات کے غلط ملوث ہونے یا منصوبہ بندی کا الزام - کوئی قابل اعتبار ثبوت نہیں-- ہاتھ میں ہونے کی صورت میں ، درخواست گزار پر 1220 گرام چرس رکھنے کا الزام لگایا گیا --- کنٹرول آف نارکوٹک سبسٹینس (امینڈمنٹ) ایکٹ ، 2022 کے ذریعے قانون میں ترمیم کے بعد ، ملزم قانون کے لیے زیادہ کمزور ہو گئے ہیں کیونکہ 1000 گرام سے 4999 گرام چرس تک کی مقدار کے لیے کم از کم سزا نو سال مقرر کی گئی ہے جس کا مطلب ہے کہ ایک بار جب کسی ملزم پر کنٹرول آف نارکوٹک سبسٹینس ایکٹ ، 1997 کی دفعہ 9 (سی) کے تحت کسی وجہ سے مقدمہ درج کیا جاتا ہے ، تو وہ ضمانت نہ ملنے یا الزام سے بری نہ ہونے کی صورت میں نو سال تک سلاخوں کے پیچھے رہے گا ۔ مزید برآں ، ترمیم شدہ قانون کے تحت سزا کی شدت کو اس لحاظ سے کم کیا گیا ہے کہ اب 1000 گرام سے 4999 گرام چرس تک کی مقدار کے لیے زیادہ سے زیادہ سزا چودہ سال ہے ، جبکہ ، اگر مقدار ایک کلوگرام سے زیادہ ہو تو موت اور عمر قید تھی ، لہذا ، تمام ارادوں اور مقاصد کے مطابق ، یہ فرض کیا جائے گا کہ قانون میں زیادہ سے زیادہ سزا کی مدت میں نرمی کی گئی ہے ، لہذا ، جس اصول پر سابقہ قانون کے تحت ضمانت کی درخواست پر کارروائی کی جا رہی تھی اس میں ترمیم شدہ قانون کی روشنی میں نرمی کی ضرورت ہے ۔ ترمیم شدہ قانون کے تحت سزا کا علاقہ فراہم کرتا ہے زیادہ سے زیادہ سزا 14 سال 9 سال سے کم نہیں لیکن اس طرح فراہم کردہ حد 1000 گرام سے 4999 گرام تک بڑھ جاتی ہے-ضمانت کے مقصد کے لیے ، ایسے معاملات میں کم سزا کو ذہن میں رکھنا چاہیے جو آسانی سے پولیس کی ناراضگی پر راحت کے طور پر درج کیا جا سکتا ہے ۔ متبادل سزاؤں پر مشتمل کسی جرم میں ضمانت کے مقصد کے لیے کم سزا پر غور کرنا عدالتوں کے ذریعے بہت سارے فیصلوں میں اصول ہے ۔-ڈی ڈی پی پی نے اگرچہ اس درخواست کی اس بنیاد پر مخالفت کی ہے کہ درخواست گزار ایک معاملے کی مجرمانہ تاریخ کو برقرار رکھتا ہے لیکن اس طرح کی نوعیت کا نہیں ہے ، تاہم ، اگر مزید تفتیش کے ٹچ اسٹون پر ریکارڈ سے فائدہ ہوتا ہے تو درخواست گزار کو ضمانت کا فائدہ بڑھانا مجرمانہ تاریخ نہیں ہے-درخواست گزار سلاخوں کے پیچھے ہے اور اس کی غیر معینہ مدت تک مسلسل حراست غیر منصفانہ ہوگی ، خاص طور پر ، جب مستقبل قریب میں مقدمے کی سماعت کا اختتام نظر نہیں آتا ہے ۔
----S. 497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, (XXV of 1997),
Ss. 9(1)(3)(c)--Post arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Falsely involved or planation of narcotic due to mala fide--No credible evidence--In case in hand, petitioner was charged for having possession of 1220 grams charas--After amendment in law through Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, accused have become more vulnerable to law because minimum sentence has beenm prescribed as nine years for a quantity ranging from 1000 grams to 4999 grams of charas which means that once an accused is booked under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 due to any reason, he shall remain behind bars for nine years if he is not granted bail or acquitted from charge--Moreover, severity of sentence under amended law has been reduced in terms that maximum sentence is now fourteen years for quantity ranging from 1000 grams to 4999 grams charas, whereas, carlier it was death and imprisonment for life if quantity exceed one kilogram, therefore, by all intends and purposes, it would be presumed that law has been relaxed in term of maximum sentence, therefore, principle upon which bail petition was being dealt with under previous law are required to be relaxed in light of amended law--The sentencing zone under amended law provides Maximum sentence 14 years not less than 09 years but ceiling so provided extends from 1000 grams to 4999 grams of as--For purpose of bail, lesser sentence is to be kept in mind in such like cases which could easily be registered out of respite on grudge of police--Considering lesser sentence for purpose of bail in an offence entailing alternate sentences is principle explained by Courts in plethora of judgments--DDPP though has opposed this petition on ground that petitioner maintains criminal history of one case but not of like nature, however, criminal history is no handicap to extend benefit of bail to petitioner if benefit otherwise spurs out from record on touchstone of further inquiry--Petitioner is behind bars and his continuous detention for indefinite period would be unfair, in particular, when conclusion of trial in near future is not in sight. [Para 5, 6, 7 & 8] A, B, C & D
2012 SCMR 573, 2020 PCr.LJ 657, 2023 SCMR 1977, 2017 SCMR 279 and 2012 SCMR 573.
Syed Afzal Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Asmat Parveen, DDPP for State.
Date of hearing: 24.6.2024.
Order
Through this petition, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 220 dated 25.03.2024 registered under Section 9(1)-3C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Saddar Sumandari District Faisalabad for having possession of charas weighing 1220 grams.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case and FIR is result of malice and stereotyped efficiency bracket of the police.
4. The available record goes on to reflect that spot proceedings i.e. raid, arrest of accused, search, recovery, separation and preparation of sample parcels, all have been done in conventional manner, with no effort on the part of the police to improve such procedural course by taking help from modern devices or introducing any other available techniques so as to video-graph such proceedings with a view to remove even the slightest doubt about involvement of the accused. Whereas, by introducing and implementing such credible course, most common plea of the accused about false involvement or plantation of narcotic due to mala fide, etc., can very conveniently be taken to logical conclusions and at the same time it may also reduce repeated attempts of the accused to seek bail, only because of insufficiency of credible evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as “Zahid Sarfraz Gill versus The State (2024 SCMR 934) authoritatively pressed the need for use of modern techniques and required the police as well as ANF to record or Photograph the spot events, which of course would be an admissible and credible source in the hands of the prosecution per terms of Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
5. In the case in hand, the petitioner was charged for having possession of 1220 grams charas. After amendment in the law through the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, the accused have become more vulnerable to the law because the minimum sentence has been prescribed as nine years for a quantity ranging from 1000 grams to 4999 grams of charas which means that once an accused is booked under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 due to any reason, he shall remain behind the bars for nine years if he is not granted bail or acquitted from the charge. Moreover, severity of sentence under the amended law has been reduced in terms that maximum sentence is now fourteen years for quantity ranging from 1000 grams to 4999 grams charas, whereas, carlier it was death and imprisonment for life if the quantity exceed one kilogram, therefore, by all intends and purposes, it would be presumed that law has been relaxed in term of maximum sentence, therefore, principle upon which bail petition was being dealt with under previous law are required to be relaxed in the light of amended law.
6. The sentencing zone under the amended law provides Maximum sentence 14 years not less than 09 years but the ceiling so provided extends from 1000 grams to 4999 grams of Charas. For the purpose of bail, lesser sentence is to be kept in mind in such like cases which could easily be registered out of respite on grudge of police. Considering lesser sentence for the purpose of bail in an offence entailing alternate sentences is the principle explained by the Courts in plethora of judgments. Reliance in this respect is placed on the cases reported as “Jamal-Ud-Din alias Zubair Khan versus The State (2012 SCMR 573). “Arshad Nadeem and 2 others versus The State and another (2020 P.Cr.LJ 657 (Lahore Multan Bench)], “Rizwan versus The State 2020 MLD 59 (Balochistan)], “Muhammad Akram versus The State (2020 P.Cr.LJ 31 (Sindh)], “Muhammad Hayhat Khan versus The State and another [2019 P.Cr.LJ 472 (Islamabad)], “Muhammad Amin versus The State [2017 YLR 609 (Sindh)], “Mustafa Ali versus The State [2014 P.Cr.LJ 1464 (Balochistan)] and “Tehmina Daultana & others versus State [PLJ 2001Cr.C (Lahore) 438 (DB)].
7. Learned DDPP though has opposed this petition on the ground that petitioner maintains criminal history of one case but not of like nature, however, criminal history is no handicap to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner if the benefit otherwise spurs out from the record on the touchstone of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on cases reported as “Zafar Nawaz versus The State and another” (2023 SCMR 1977), “Qurban Ali versus The State and others” (2017 SCMR 279) and “Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan versus The State” (2012 SCMR 573).
8. Petitioner is behind the bars since 25.03.2024 and his continuous detention for indefinite period would be unfair, in particular, when conclusion of trial in near future is not in sight. Reliance is placed on case reported as “Saeed Ahmad versus State through P.G. Punjab and another” (PL.J 2018 SC 812).
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments