1550 گرام چرس کی ضمانت منظور

PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 221
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
MUNIR AKHTAR--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc No. 2427-B of 2024, decided on 15.5.2024.

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

--انسداد منشیات ایکٹ (1997ء)، دفعہ 9(1)3(سی)-گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت، دفعہ 9(1)3(سی) سی این ایس ترمیمی ایکٹ، 2022ء کے تحت زیادہ سے زیادہ سزا 14 سال ہے لیکن اگر چرس کی مقدار 1000 گرام سے بڑھا کر 4999 گرام کر دی جائے تو یہ 09 سال سے کم نہیں ہوگی۔ سی آر پی سی کیونکہ ضمانت کے مقصد سے کم سزا پر غور کیا جانا چاہیے- اب تک یہ بات ثابت ہو چکی ہے کہ زیر التوا مقدمے کی سماعت مکمل ہونے تک انڈر ٹرائلز کو غیر معینہ مدت تک حراست میں نہیں رکھا جا سکتا- مثالی طور پر، کسی بھی شخص کو اس وقت تک اپنے اعمال کے منفی نتائج کا سامنا نہیں کرنا چاہیے جب تک کہ اسے غیر جانبدار ثالث کے سامنے ثابت نہ کر دیا جائے- تاہم، حقیقی زندگی کے عملی پہلوؤں کی وجہ سے جہاں ایک مؤثر ٹرائل کو محفوظ بنایا جا سکتا ہے اور اگر کسی ممکنہ مجرم کو بڑے پیمانے پر زیر التوا ٹرائل میں چھوڑ دیا جاتا ہے تو معاشرے کے لیے خطرے کو کم کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ عدالتوں کو یہ فیصلہ کرنے کی ذمہ داری سونپی گئی ہے کہ آیا کسی فرد کو مقدمے کی سماعت کے دوران رہا کیا جانا چاہئے یا نہیں - ایک بار جب یہ واضح ہوجائے کہ بروقت ٹرائل ممکن نہیں ہوگا اور ملزم کو کافی عرصے تک قید کا سامنا کرنا پڑا ہے تو ، عدالتیں عام طور پر اسے ضمانت پر توسیع دینے کی پابند ہوں گی - درخواست گزار کی طرف سے کوئی سزا نہیں ہے - تفتیش مکمل ہے - درخواست گزار اپنی گرفتاری کے بعد سے سلاخوں کے پیچھے ہے اور اس کی مزید قید منافع بخش نہیں ہوگی۔ استغاثہ - نتیجتا، ہاتھ میں درخواست کی اجازت دی جاتی ہے.

--S.497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, (XXV of 1997), S. 9(1)3(c)--Bail after arrest, grant of--Under Section 9(1)3(c) C.N.S Amendment Act, 2022, maximum sentence provided is 14 years but shall not less than 09 years if quantity of charas extends from 1000 grams to 4999 grams, thus does not attract prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. because for purpose of bail, lesser sentence is to be considered--Held: It is established by now that under-trials cannot indefinitely be detained until completion of pending trial--Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless same is established before a neutral arbiter--However, owing to practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not--Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and accused has Suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail--There is no conviction on part of petitioner--The investigation is complete--The petitioner is behind bars since his arrest and his further incarceration would not be lucrative to prosecution--Resultantly, petition in hand is allowed. [Para 4, 5 & 7] A, B & D

2012 SCMR 573, 2020 PCr.LJ 657, 2020 MLD 59

2020 PCr.LJ 31 and 2015 SCMR 1092.

Inordinate Delay--

--اب یہ طے ہو چکا ہے کہ جلد ٹرائل کرنا ہر ملزم کا بنیادی حق ہے اور انصاف کی فراہمی میں غیر معمولی تاخیر سے ایک طرف تو عوام کے اعتماد میں کمی کا امکان ہے تو دوسری طرف اس سے عوام کی پریشانیوں میں اضافے کے علاوہ بے بسی، مایوسی اور مایوسی کا احساس بھی پیدا ہوتا ہے۔ [پیرا 6] C

--It is now settled that an early trial is an inherent right of every accused, and inordinate delay in imparting justice is likely to cause erosion of public confidence on one hand, and on other, it also creates sense of helplessness, despair and feelings of frustration apart from adding to woes of public. [Para 6] C

PLD 2005 Karachi 201 and 2003 PCr.LJ 73.

Ch. Daoud Ahmed Wains, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Hassan Mehmood Khan Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Date of hearing 15.5.2024.

Order

Through the instant petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 728 dated 10.07.2023, offence under Section 9-(1)3(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (“CNSA, 1997”), registered with Police Station City Mailsi, District Vehari.

2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that from his possession, total 1550 grams Charas was recovered.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. Under Section 9(1)3(c) C.N.S Amendment Act, 2022, the maximum sentence provided is 14 years but shall not less than 09 years if quantity of charas extends from 1000 grams to 4999 grams, thus does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. because for the purpose of bail, lesser sentence is to be considered. Reliance in this regard is placed upon “Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan v. The State” (2012 SCMR 573), “Arshad Nadeem and 2 others v. The State and another” [2020 P.Cr.LJ 657 (Lahore Multan Bench)], “Rizwan v. The State” [2020 MLD 59 (Balochistan)], “Muhammad Akram v. The State” [2020 P.Crl.LJ 31 (Sindh)], “Muhammad Hayat Khan v. The State and another” [2019 P.Cr.LJ 472 (Islamabad)], “Muhammad Amin v. The State” [2017 YLR 609 (Sindh)], “Mustafa Ali v. The State” [2014 P.Cr.L.J 1464 (Balochistan)], and “Rehmina Daultana & others v. State” [PLJ 2001 Cr.C (Lahore) 48 (DB)]. Moreover, the learned Prosecutor has not been able to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the case of accused who had been granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 21.11.2023 rendered in Criminal Petition No. 1192 of 2023 titled as “Zahid Sarfraz Gill vs. The State” from whom 1833 grams Charas was recovered.

5. The petitioner was arrested and detained in this case on 10.07.2023 and as per Investigating Officer no prosecution evidence has been recorded so far. Till now, a continuous period of almost ten months since the detention of the petitioner in the case has lapsed without conclusion of the trial; therefore, a right to be released on bail has prima facie been accrued to the petitioner. If the learned trial Court shall proceed the trial with such a speed, the same would not conclude the trial in near future, therefore, this Court is left with no option but to release the accused-petitioner on bail. It is established by now that under-trials cannot indefinitely be detained until completion of pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has Suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail. In the case of Himesh Khan vs. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Lahore and others (2015 SCMR 1092), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:

“Speedy trial was the alienable right of every person, therefore, even if the provision of S. 497, Cr.P.C. in ordinary course was not applicable to an accused person facing charges under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the boarder principle of the same could be pressed into service in hardship cases to provide relief to a deserving accused person incarcerated in jail for a shockingly long period”.

6. It is now settled that an early trial is an inherent right of every accused, and inordinate delay in imparting justice is likely to cause erosion of public confidence on one hand, and on the other, it also creates sense of helplessness, despair and feelings of frustration apart from adding to the woes of the public. In this respect reliance can well be placed on the case “Wazir Ali vs. The State” (PLD 2005 K 201). In this respect reference may also be made from the judgment reported as “Behram vs. The State” (2003 P Cr.LJ 73), wherein it was held that “fair and expeditious trial is fundamental right of the accused person which cannot be denied to him.”

7. Learned law officer has admitted that there is no conviction on the part of the petitioner. The investigation is complete. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration would not be lucrative to the prosecution. Resultantly, the petition in hand is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and shall not influence the trial Court in any manner.

(A.A.K.) Petition allowed