2020 M L D 59
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch, JJ
RIZWAN---Applicant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.101 of 2019, decided on 20th August, 2019.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(b) & (c) ---Possession
of narcotics ---Bail, grant of ---Borderline case ---Completion of investigation---Further
inquiry--- Scope ---Police, on usual patrolling, recovered 1300 grams of charas and 300
grams of crystal from the possession of accused ---Allegedly recovered contraband was
1300 grams charas and 300 grams crystal and it was a borderline case between clauses (b)
and (c) of S.9 of Control of Na rcotic Substances Act, 1997 ---Quantity of allegedly
recovered charas marginally exceeded limit of 1000 grams, under such circumstances Trial Court had to determine whether the maximum punishment would be awarded or not ---
Where two quantum of sentences were provided in the statute, the lesser had to be
considered for the purpose of bail ---Question of quantum of sentence, in the present case,
fell within the purview of further inquiry---Applicant had been shifted to judicial custody and the witnesses cited in the calendar were police personnel, therefore, the applicant was
not required for further investigation nor there was any apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence ---Medical certificates annexed with the application showed that the
applicant was a cancer patient, therefore keeping him behind the bars without proper
treatment might be dangerous for his life ---Applicant had successfully made out a case
calling for further inquiry as envisaged under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.--- Petition for grant of bail
was accepted.
Naimatullah v. State 2017 MLD 1097 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497 ---Bail---Where two quantum of sentences are provided in the statute, for the
purpose of bail, the lesser was to be considered.
Abdul Rauf Lehri for Applicant.
Abdul Latif Kakar, Additional Prosecutor General for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th August, 2019.
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. ---The applicant Rizwan seeks bail in FIR No.158
of 2019 registered with Police Station Hub City, under Secti on 9 -C of the Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("the Act").
Earlier the application filed for the same relief before the learned Special Judge
Control of Narcotic Substances, Lasbella at Hub was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2019. Hence this application.
2. Brief facts of the case are that at the stated date, time and place, the police personnel
of the police station Hub city were on usual patrolling, when the applicant was apprehended on suspicion, whereby from his possession 1300 grams Charas and 300 grams Crystal were
recovered.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APG and have gone
through the record with their able assistance. Admittedly the alleged recovered contraband was 1300 grams Charas and 300 grams Crysta l, and it is a border line case between Clause
b and c of Section 9 of the CNS Act. As the quantity of the alleged recovered Charas marginally exceeded the limit of 1000 grams, under such circumstances whether the maximum punishment would be awarded or not , the same would be determined at the trial.
By now the principles of granting of bail in such like cases are well settled. In the case of Naimatullah v. State (2017 MLD 1097) this court has elucidated the principles for considering the grant of bail keepi ng in view the guidance of Hon' able Supreme Court and
maintained as under:
"It has been consistent view of the superior courts that in cases where recovery of narcotics substance does not exceed the limit between 900 to 1500 grams, the case being of borderline between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of CNS, Act, 1997, therefore, invariably in all cases applicants have been admitted to bail."
4. Even it is by now well settled that where two quantum of sentences are provided in
the statute, for the pur pose of bail, the lesser shall be considered, therefore in the instant
case the question of quantum of sentence would also fall within the purview of further inquiry.
5. The applicant has been shifted to judicial custody and the witnesses cited in the
calendar are police personnel, therefore the applicant is neither required for further investigation nor there is any apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence.
6. Even otherwise the medical certificates/tests annexed with the application shows
that the applicant is a cancer patient therefore keeping him behind the bars might be
dangerous for his life without proper treatment.
For the above stated reasons the applicant/accused has successfully made out a case
calling for further inquiry as envisa ged under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly vide short
order dated 07.08.2019 this application was accepted and the applicant Rizwan son of Haji
Muhammad was granted bail in FIR No.185 of 2019 Police Station Hub City under section 9-c of CNS Act, 1997, s ubject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/ - (rupees One
hundred thousand only) and PR bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Additional Registrar of this court. The above discussion shall constitute the reasons to the earlier order announced in open court.
Needless to observe that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature
and same shall not affect the merits of the case at the trial.
SA/84/Bal. Bail granted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.