Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NADEEM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHANSheraz Mahmood,Tariq Ismail Mayo
2007 Y L R 3144
2007 Y L R 3144
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Muzammal Khan and Syed Hamid Ali Shah, JJ
NADEEM---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 704-M of 2007, decided on 13th February, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(b)---Bail, grant of---Allegation of sale of narcotics by the accused was. not supported- by any evidence with the prosecution---No prospective purchaser .was named or arrested at the time of arrest of accused---Accused was not involved in any other alike case---Meagre quantity of 560 grams of "Charas" recovered from accused would not make him a transporter or trafficker of the contraband---Accused was in detention for about five months and conclusion of his trial could not be expected in near future---Person of accused was no more. required for investigation and his further detention would not advance any useful purpose---Bail could not be withheld as of punishment in absence of any allegation of abscondence or tampering with the prosecution evidence by the accused---Offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P. C. ---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Sheraz Mahmood for the Petitioner.
Tariq Ismail Mayo, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State with Muhammad Riaz, S.I.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN; J.---Petitioner was refused post-arrest bail in case against him vide F.I.R No-300 dated 18-9-2006 under section 9-B of C.N.S.A., 1997, registered with police station Kharianwala, District Gujrat, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16-10-2006. He, thereafter, filed instant petition, for the same relief.
2. Charge against the petitioner is that police patrolling party on spy information, apprehended the petitioner and on his search, Charas weighing 560 grams was recovered from his possession. Petitioner after remaining on physical remand, has since been remitted to judicial lock-up.
3. We have-heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Allegation of involvement of the petitioner in sale of narcotics is not supported by any evidence with the prosecution and., at the same time, no prospective .purchaser was named or arrested at the time of his arrest. He has no criminal history to his credit, as he is not involved in any other alike case. Meagre quantity of 560 grams of Charas recovered from the petitioner, would not make him transporter/trafficker of the contraband and he did not lead to any further recovery in spite of remaining on physical remand. Challan was submitted on 4-10-2006 but even charge against the petitioner has not been framed and there is no probability of conclusion of the trial in near future. Petitioner ties already faced detention of about five months and his person, is no more required for investigation purposes. Further detention of the petitioner would not advance prosecution case, any more. The offence charged falls under section 9-B C. N.S.A.,1997, which is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C. In absence of any allegation of abscondence or tampering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail is not to be withheld as of punishment. He would face the sentence ultimately convicted by the trial Court.
4. For the reasons .noted above; petitioner has made out a case for his post--arrest bail, in the case against him, pending -its trial. This petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q/N-41/L Bail allowed.