Nasir-Ul-Din  V.  The State Narcotics Cases,

YLR 2012 490Balochistan High CourtCriminal Law2012

Bench: Abdul Qadir Mengal

Share on WhatsApp
2012 Y L R 490 [Balochistan] Before Abdul Qadir Mengal and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ NASIR -UL-DIN---Applicant Versus THE STATE ---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No.30 of 2011, decided on 24th September, 2011. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497 ---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(a)(b) & 51(1)(2) --- Possessing and traffickin g of narcotics ---Bail, grant of ---No doubt S.51(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 laid embargo on the court not to grant bail in offence, which was punishable with death, but clause (2) of said section, had provided that a court would not norm ally grant bail, unless the court was of the opinion that it was a fit case for grant of bail -- -Cases to be called fit for the purpose of S.51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were those which required further enquiry or probe or the case i n which meagre quantity of 'charas' was recovered ---In the present case charas upto 200 grams was recovered and out of the same only 5 grams had been sent for analysis ---Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and case was fit for grant of bail within the meaning and scope of clause (2) of S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ---Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Azeem Kakar for Applicant. Liaquat Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th September, 2011. ORDER ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, J. ---This Bail Application under section 497, Cr.P.C. has been moved in case F.I.R., No.39 of 2011, registered under section 9(A) of the C.N.S. Act, 1997, at Police Station Duki, District Loralai. 2. Brief facts leading to file the present Bail Application are that the S.I. Mujeeb -ur- Rehman along with other police officials was on patrol duty, during which, when he reached at Garden Road near Damani Chowk, he found the present applicant in a suspicious manne r, whereupon, he caught hold him and on search 200 grams of 'Charas' recovered from his possession. The applicant was arrested and sent to the Court of Special Judge C.N.S., Loralai, to face his trial. The applicant moved an application before the learned Special Judge C.N.S., Loralai, however, he declines to grant him bail on the ground that, the alleged offence is not bailable and the nature of the trial of the case is neither protected nor prolonged. 3. However, the counsel for the applicant stated tha t, the quantity of the 'Charas' is 200 grams out of which only 5 grams have been sent for analysis and if on the basis of the separated samples, the applicant is held to be responsible for the offence, even then, there is no likelihood that he be pu nished for more than one year, as admittedly, the bail is not withheld as a punishment. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the record of the case. No doubt, section 51 clause (1) lays embargo on the Courts not to gran t bail in any offence, which is punishable to the death. Whereas, the clause (2) of section 51 provides that, a Court shall not normally grant the bail, unless the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail. 5. In our considered opin ion, the cases be called fit for the purposes of this section are those, which require further inquiry or probe, or the cases in which the recovery of a meager quantity of the 'Charas' upto 200 grams is stated, to have been recovered and out of the same only 5 grams have been sent for analysis. So being the present offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., so as is a fit case for the grant of bail within the meaning and scope of the clause (2) of section 51 of Narcot ic Substances Act, 1997. As such, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicant is released on bail, provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand), a P.R. bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Addition al Registrar of this Court or the trial Court. These are the reasons of our short order dated 12 -9-2011. H.B.T./121/Q 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.

Related judgments

Re-Investigation can be permitted under special circumstances

PLJ 2020 · Balochistan High Court · 2020

Importance of 342 Statement in a Criminal Trial

PLJ 2018 SC 453 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Prosecution must establish that chain of custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure

PLJ 2018 SC (Cr.C.) 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Domicile and Residence Certificate are different

PLJ 2013 · Balochistan High Court · 2013

Pakistan - The Registration Act 1908

Balochistan High Court · 2012