2018 PLP 1728 (MLD)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through these petitions the petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.92 of 2017 dated 20-12-2017 registered under section 9(b) CNSA, 1997 at Police Station city Gahkuch.

2. Through this consolidated order I intend to dispose of two Cr. Misc. Petitions bearing Nos.14/2018 and 16/2018 as both the petitions have arisen out of one and the same FIR and also same order dated 08-01-2018 passed by the learned vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit.

3. Precisely, relevant facts necessary for disposal of the aforesaid two bail petitions are that on 20-12-2017 at 17:15 hours the complainant namely Syed Afsar Ali Shah, ASIP of Police Station Gahkuch, Altaf Hussain, Javed Ali FCs and Khandan Shah HC. allegedly recovered 456 grams Chars from the accused/petitioner namely Imran and his co-accused Niamat ullah at near suspension bridge Hatoon Tehsil Punial District Ghizer. Out of recovered chars 56 grams Chars was separated for sending the same for Forensic Science L,aboratory for chemical examination and expert report. Both the above named two nominated accused were arrested on the spot.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners/accused had filed bail petition in the Court of the learned vacation Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA Gilgit for grant of bail which was dismissed by the learned vacation Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA Gilgit vide order dated 12-01-2018, hence these petitions.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioners/accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that one nominated co-accused of the present petitioners/accused namely Niamatullah has been discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C., hence rule of consistency applies to the case of the present petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that offence under section 9(b) CNSA, 1997 does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence the petitioners/accused are entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that accused/petitioner namely Malik Aman son of Chamo Malik has not been nominated in the FIR nor any incriminating material/Chars has been recovered from his possession. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that one ASIP has lodged FIR and investigated the case of petitioners, whereas under the Provisions of CNSA, 1997, ASIP is not competent to register the FIR and investigate the case registered under the provisions of CNSA, 1997.

6. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General GB vehemently opposed these petitions by contending that the accused/ petitioners are directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and contraband Chars has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners/accused namely Imran. The learned Dy. Advocate General further argued that the petitioners have committed an offence against the society at large; hence the petitioners are not entitled for concession of bail.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.

8. From perusal of record it transpires that 456 grams Chars was allegedly recovered from common possession of the present petitioner/accused namely Imran and another nominated co-accused namely Niamatullah but it is astonishing to observe that the police have released/discharged the co-accused of the present petitioners namely Niamatullah, hence rule of consistency applies to the case of present petitioner namely Imran.

9. As far case of the petitioner/accused namely Malik Aman is concerned he has not been nominated in the FIR and nothing has been recovered from his possession, hence case to the extent of accused/ petitioner namely Malik Aman requires further inquiry.

10. Moreover, meagre quantity of narcotics i.e. 457 grams Chars was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused namely Imran as such his case does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, hence grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception.

11. Considering the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners have succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail. Consequently, these petitions are allowed and accused/petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Three lac) with two sureties each and P.R. bonds each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned vacation Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA Gilgit.

12. Before parting with this order it is clarified that the observations made above are tentative in nature and learned trial court will decide the case strictly on merits in accordance with law. File. JK/5/GB Bail granted.