2003 PLP 1163 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑Ss.9(b)(c) & 51‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Allegation against accused was that two Kgs. of Charas and five Kgs. of Bhang were recovered from his possession‑‑‑Case of accused fell under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which was punishable with death whereas from the possession of each of the remaining accused 1 Kg. of Charas was recovered‑‑‑Case of said co‑accused fell under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punishable with seven years‑ ‑‑Case of co accused being distinguishable from the case of accused, rule of consistency would not be applicable in the case of accused‑‑‑Bail could not be granted to an accused under provisions of S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 where his offence was punishable with death‑‑‑Punishment under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being death, case of accused fell under prohibitory clause of S.51 of the said Act‑‑ Accused in circumstances was not entitled for Concession of bail. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for Applicant. Ali Azher Tunio, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. The allegation against the present applicant is that two Kgs. of Charas and five Kgs. of Bhang were secured from his possession. During the said raid and search from the possession of other accused namely Asif, Munir, Hussain Bux and Manzoor lesser quantity of Charas viz. 1 Kg. was secured from each accused. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that co accused Asif, Munir, Hussain Bux and Manzoor were granted bail by this Court and the case of the present accused is similar to that of co‑accused, therefore, on the rule of consistency of applicant is entitled .for the concession of bail and that the story of prosecution is unbelievable. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate‑General has stated that the bail was granted to the co‑accused, as their cases fall under section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but the case of the present accused falls under section 9(c) of the said Act and punishment of the said offence is death therefore he is not entitled for the concession of bail in view of provision of section 51 of the said Act. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and find that the case of co‑accused is distinguishable from the case of the present applicant. The allegation against the present applicant is that two Kgs. of Charas and five Kgs. of Bhang were secured from his possession therefore, his case falls under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which is punishable with death whereas from the possession of each of the remaining accused 1 Kg. Of Charas was secured as such their case falls under section 9(b) of the said Act which is punishable with seven years. As such the rule of consistency will not be applicable in this case. Under section 51 of the said Act it is provided that no bail can be granted to an accused person where the offence is punishable with death. In the present case the punishment of the 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is death therefore the case of the applicant falls under the prohibitory clause of section 51 of the said Act. Hence he is not entitled for the concession of bail. The application is dismissed. H.B.T./W‑33/K Bail application dismissed.