Asif V.T he State,
Bench: Rozi Khan Barach
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Asif who was arrested in Hub City, Balochistan, after police allegedly caught him carrying a black bag containing four kilograms of opium. He was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, a provision dealing with possession of large quantities of narcotics. After the trial court refused to release him on bail, he approached the Balochistan High Court seeking post-arrest bail.
The High Court dismissed his bail application. The judges noted that Asif was allegedly caught red-handed with the drugs, and that the quantity recovered exceeded the threshold that places the offense in the more serious category under the law. The court emphasized that narcotics offenses are treated as particularly serious because they harm society as a whole, which is why the law itself (Section 51 of the Act) urges caution before granting bail in such cases. The court stated that someone accused of distributing a substance it described as a "deadly poison" to society does not easily qualify for bail unless they can show they meet the specific legal conditions for it.
This case is a useful example of how Pakistani courts generally treat narcotics cases—especially those involving large quantities—more strictly than ordinary offenses when deciding bail applications, reflecting the law's built-in presumption against easy release in such circumstances.
یہ مقدمہ آصف نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق ہے جسے بلوچستان کے ہب سٹی میں اس وقت گرفتار کیا گیا جب پولیس کے مطابق وہ ایک کالے بیگ میں چار کلوگرام افیون لے کر جا رہا تھا۔ اس پر کنٹرول آف نارکوٹک سبسٹینسز ایکٹ 1997 کی دفعہ 9(c) کے تحت الزام عائد کیا گیا، جو کہ منشیات کی بڑی مقدار کے قبضے سے متعلق ہے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ کی جانب سے ضمانت دینے سے انکار کے بعد اس نے ضمانت بعد از گرفتاری کے لیے بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے اس کی ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔ججوں نے نوٹ کیا کہ آصف مبینہ طور پر منشیات کے ساتھ رنگے ہاتھوں پکڑا گیا تھا، اور برآمد شدہ مقدار اس حد سے زیادہ تھی جو قانون کے تحت اس جرم کو زیادہ سنگین زمرے میں ڈالتی ہے۔ عدالت نے زور دیا کہ منشیات سے متعلق جرائم کو خاص طور پر سنگین سمجھا جاتا ہے کیونکہ یہ پورے معاشرے کو نقصان پہنچاتے ہیں، یہی وجہ ہے کہ قانون خود (ایکٹ کی دفعہ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2023 P Cr. L J Note 33 [Balochistan] Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ ASIF ---Applicant Versus The STATE--- Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. 84 of 2020, decided on 22nd June, 2020. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497 ---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 51--- Possession of narcotics ---Bail was not to be granted in respect of certain offences ---Bail, refusal of --- Scope ---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 4 kilograms of opium --- Accused was apprehended red -handed while in possession of 4 kilograms of contraband--- Offence for which the accused was charged fell under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997--- Offences punishable under Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, were heinous in nature and considered to be offences against the society at large and it was for such reason that statute itself had provided a note of caution under S. 51 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, before enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary course ---Accused was not entitled for grant of bail ---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch for Applicant. Abdul Latif Kakar, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 17th June, 2020. ORDER ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---Through this application the applicant/accused namely Asif son of Hasil Khan seeks post -arrest bail in FIR No. 340 of 2019 registered at Hub City District Lasbela under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter "the CNS Act 1997"), which was declined to him by learned Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances/Additional Sessions Judge -II, Hub (hereinafter "the trial court").
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 9th December 2019 at 11:10 p.m. the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of one SI Qazi Muhammad Aslam with the allegation that on same day at 09:50 p.m. he along with other police personnel were patrolling; that when they reached near Ameer Abad, a person having a black shopper in his right hand was standing in a suspicious condition who while seeing the police tried to escape but was apprehended; that from the said shopper 4 pieces of opium weighing 4 kgs were recovered. Thus, the aforesaid FIR was lodged.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. It may be observed that the applicant was apprehended red- handed, while in possession of 4 kilograms of contraband. The offence, for which the applicant/accused has been charged, falls under section 9(c) of the Act, as the quantity of opium recovered from the applicant/accused is more than four kilograms. It is pertinent to mention here that offences punishable under the CNS Act, 1997 are heinous in nature and considered to be offences against the society at large, and it is for such reason that the statute itself has provided a note of caution under section 51 of the CNS Act, 1997 before enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary course, when we refer to the standards set out under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under section 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997. Needless to mention here that a person accused of spreading a deadly poison i.e. the narcotics, in any society is not the kind of person who qualifies for the grant of any discretionary relief unless such a person could demonstrate that he was entitled to the grant of bail in view of the principles contained in section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. For whatever has been mentioned above, we have reached at the irresistible conclusion that the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. Before parting, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever. SA/135/Bal. Bail declined.