2025 Y L R 2508
[Balochistan)]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Muhammad Najam -ud-Din
Mengal, JJ
IMRAN---Applicant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 46 of 2025, decided on 28th March, 2025.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497(1) ---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), [as amendment] by
the Control of Narcotics (Amendment) Act, (XX of 2022)], S. 9(1), Sr. No. 3(c) ---
Possession of narcotic substance--- Bail, dismissal of ---Accused -petitioner was allegedly
found in possession of 2000- grams charas ---Tentative assessment of the record prima
facie connected the applicant (accused) with the commission of offence which fell within
the prohibitory clause of S.497 (1) of Cr.P.C.--- Even at bail stage if any observation is
made by High Court, the same would affect the merits of the case ---Thus, let the Trial
Court detach the guilt or innocence of the applicant (accused) after recording evidence in the matter ---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Socha Gul v. The State 2015 SCMR 1077 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 497 ---Bail orders ---Observations of the Court ---Scope ---Observations made in bail
orders are tentative in nature and same should not influence the merits of the case at the trial.
Ghous Bakhsh Muhammad Hussani for Applicant.
Muhammad Younas Mengal, Additional P.G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 27th March, 2025.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UD-DIN MENGAL, J .--- This order disposes of Criminal
Bail Application No.46 of 2025, whereby the applicant (accused) Muhammad Imran son of Shoukat is seeking bail after arrest in case FIR No.13 of 2025 dated 10th January 2025, Police Station Jinnah Town, District Quetta under Section 9(1) 3- C of CNS Act, 1997.
2. Facts of the case are that on 10th January 2025, the complainant Arshad Khan Abbasi,
ASI, lodged the above FIR against the applicant (accused) with the averments that on the said date he along with other police officials was on routine patrolling duty, at about 02:40 p.m. when they reached at Shahbaz Town Phase - I; where found a person in suspicious
condition standing near the park, who was stopped by the police personnel. On query he disclosed his name as Muhammad Imran son of Ghulam Mustafa. His personal search was conducted which resulted into recovery of two packets of Charas weighing 1000/1000- grams,
out of which 5/5- grams were separated from each packet and sealed in parcel Nos.1 and 2
for FSL, while the remaining contraband was sealed in parcel Nos.1- A and 2- A.
3. After registration of FIR, the applicant (accused) was investigated and on completion
thereof, he was remanded to judicial custody. In the meanwhile, the applicant (accused) filed an application for grant of bail in the Court of learned Special Judge, CNS/Additional
Sessions Judge -I, Quetta ("trial Court"), which was rejected, vide order dated 21st February
2025. Whereafter, instant application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has not
committed any offence; that no recovery of whatsoever in nature has ever been effected from
the exclusive or conscious possession of the applicant; that since meager quantity of contraband has allegedly been recovered from the possession of the accused- applicant, thus
apparently the sentence likely to be awarded would not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., hence he is entitled for grant of bail in order to make his defence properly.
5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General strongly opposed the bail application and
contended that sufficient incriminatory evidence is available on record connecting the applicant with the commission of crime, as huge quantity of contraband was recovered from his personal possession; that the case falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C. and non -bailable in nature, thus he is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the available record. The tentative
assessment of record prima- facie reflects that 2000 -grams Charas have allegedly been
recovered from the possession of the accused- applicant, which falls within the category of
Section 9 (1) (3) (C) of CNS (Amendment) Act, 2022, which prescribed punishment for a term, which may extend to Fourteen years, in addition to fine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Socha Gul v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1077", while observing about
the categorization of sentencing at bail stage held as under:
"In our opinion, in such circumstances, neither categorization of sentencing nor any
guess work or speculative exercise could be undertaken by the Court at bail stage to
enlarge an accused on bail in such crimes, which will amount to pre- empting the mind
of the trial Court, controlling its powers in the matter of sentencing an accused and determining the quantum of sentence upon his conviction. … It is pertinent to
mention here that offences punishable under C.N.S. Act of 1997 are by its nature
heinous and considered to be the offences against the society at large and it is for this
reason that the statute itself has provided a note of caution under section 51 of C.N.S. Act of 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 C.N.S. Act of 1997, even on that basis we find that an accused charged with an offence, prescribing various punishments, as reproduced above, is not entitled for grant of bail merely on account of the nature or quantity of narcotic substance, being four kilograms. Firstly, as deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and secondly, in such situation, looking to the peculiar features and nature of the offence, the trial Court may depart from the normal standards prescribed in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) and award him any other legal punishment. Thus, in our opinion, ratio of judgment in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) is not relevant at bail stage.
7. The further tentative assessment of the record prima facie connects the applicant
(accused) with the commission of offence which falls within the prohibtory clause of Section 497 (1) of Cr.P.C. Even at bail stage if any observation is made by this Court, the same would effect the merits of the case. Thus, let the trial Court to detach the guilt or innocence of the applicant (accused) after recording evidence in the matter, hence we are not inclined to accept this bail application, which is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
The observation made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and same shall not
influence the merits of the case at the trial.
JK/60/Bal. Application dismissed.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.