2010 PLP 1045 (MLD)

Petitioner Muhammad Rashid by way of the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 66 registered under sections 9-C/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 with Police Station ANF, Lahore on 10-9-2009.

2. Briefly the allegation against him as per the F.I.R. is that on 10-9-2009 at about 3-15 p.m. he was apprehended by a raiding party along with others and from his possession three kilograms Charas, was recovered.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that he allegedly on the above said date and time has been found in possession of three Kilograms Charas, while his co-accused Ansar and others had also been found in possession of such narcotics of different quantity.

4. The narcotic allegedly recovered from him was of heavy quantity. It has been argued on his behalf that in the case of Saeed Chandio v. The State (2009 MLD 1409, Karachi), an accused was allowed bail from whose possession five kilograms Charas was recovered. We are afraid that the said authority is not applicable to his case as it was not a narcotics case and rather a question of bail in the case under section 302/34, P.P.C. We have carefully gone through that judgment. It has proceeded on different facts and circumstances than that of him.

5. We have carefully gone through his petition. In para. 3 of the same, there is mention of the said authority. This is but a wrong reliance on his part.

6. It may be mentioned here that the above Act is a special enactment. It has it's own scheme and object. The intention of the legislature is evident from it's different provisions that it was designed to curb the menace of narcotic drugs in the society, which is speedily increasing day by day.

7. It has also been contended on his behalf that the bail cannot be withheld as punishment in advance. We are unable to agree with this submission as the offence is not only against the society but the mankind as well. It entails heavy punishment. His side has not been able to show us anything to say that he has been involved in the instant case for any ulterior motive of the complainant or others.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of it's own facts and circumstances. Due to the facts and circumstances of his case, as observed by us above, we do not find him entitled to bail at this stage. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.

9. We may observe that that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on any body's case at trial. H.B.T./M-132/L Bail refused.