2018 PLP 27 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Petitioner, who is involved for the offence of section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, hereunder referred as CNSA 1997, booked through FIR No.48/2016, of Police Station City Skardu, seeks his release on bail through this petition. Previously, petitioner moved similar bail petition before the Sessions Judge Skardu, who, through his order dated 25-06-2016, dismissed the same.

2. Brief background of prosecution story of occurrence disclosed in the FIR is that police of P.S. City Skardu obtained information from Mr. Ilyas Hussain, an accused of the occurrence of FIR No.47/2016, about trafficking of narcotics by petitioner. On this, police went to the scene of occurrence where they found petitioner in a suspected condition and conducted search of the bed of the petitioner. Police recovered charas weighing 3 kilograms as a result of such search of the bed of petitioner. Police conducted preliminary investigation on the spot of occurrence and then shifted the petitioner and the so recovered charas/ narcotics to the police station.

3. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General. We have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the parties. In the case in hand, it is very clear that police of P.S. City Skardu has chalked FIR for the offence of section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997. At this stage of the case, prosecution has prima facie sufficient evidence connecting petitioner with the occurrence. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that the ordinary police of P.S. City Skardu had no power to chalk FIR for offence of section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997. In the opinion of the learned counsel for petitioner, this very defect in the investigation of the case entitles petitioner for grant of bail. It is not disputed that, so far, police of P.S. City Skardu has either submitted challan in the Court or is about to submit the same. It is also not disputed that the law of CNSA is a special law and a special force has been established for conducting investigations in occurrences of offences falling under the said Act. It is also not disputed that Sessions Judge of every district in GB is working as a Judge Narcotics and is obtaining an allowance for that purpose.

4. In view of the above admitted state of affairs, we had to give thoughtful consideration to the questions that, whether police of P.S. City Skardu could chalk FIR for offences of CNSA? If said police did so, how the Judge Anti-Narcotics must have reacted? It is also very important to note that a number of similar cases, with slight difference, came up before this Court and this Court has given its opinion in more than one cases. In a case reported in Yearly Law Reporter (YLR), in the month of March 2016, this Court has held that:- 6. "We, therefore, dismiss this petition and direct the learned court of Judge Anti-Narcotics/ Sessions Judge Ghizer for returning or passing further directions for returning the challan of case to the Director or Assistant Director Anti-Narcotics Force for reinvestigation of the case and resubmission of challan by said force in the court concerned. Petition dismissed. This file be consigned to record."

5. In our opinion, police stations of ordinary police have no power, whatsoever, to chalk FIR of the occurrences of offences falling in CNSA 1997. So, we are of the view that, in the case in hand also, police of P.S. City Skardu has wrongly chalked FIR of the occurrence and we direct them to approach the Court of Anti-Narcotics for return of the challan, if already submitted, and if not so far submitted the challan, they should return the case file to the police of Anti-Narcotics in Gilgit or Skardu for further processing the case in the said PS. If the challan has already been submitted before the Court of Judge Narcotics, he may also return the file to the Narcotics Force who should resubmit the challan after doing the needful.

6. We are of the opinion that this petition also merits dismissal. In our opinion, petitioner cannot take benefit of mistakes of the police concerned or even at this stage of the case, we cannot overrule any kind of possibility of ulterior motives of the police in chalking the FIR. Petition dismissed. File be consigned to record. WA/32/GB Bail refused.