Bail Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) and Bail

Initially, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provisions in Section 9 that dealt with punishments for contraventions of Sections 6, 7, and 8. The punishments were based on the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, or controlled substance.

2022 and 2023 have seen significant changes in Pakistan’s approach to narcotics offences as embodied in the amendments to Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Originally, this section categorized punishments into three tiers based on the quantity of narcotics involved, with the most severe penalties, including potentially the death penalty or life imprisonment, for the largest quantities.

The 2022 amendment to this Act marked a significant shift. It introduced detailed tables specifying the types and quantities of narcotics, assigning specific punishments for each category. Notably, it brought in harsher penalties for offences near educational institutions and escalated punishments for repeat offenders. This amendment also clarified ‘life imprisonment’ as 25 years of jail time and restricted remissions, probations, and paroles mainly to juveniles and females, subject to Federal Government discretion.

In 2023, the Act underwent another crucial amendment, removing the possibility of the death penalty for narcotics offences. This change represents a substantial shift in the legal stance towards narcotics, prioritizing life imprisonment over capital punishment.

These amendments reflect a more nuanced legal approach, emphasizing the protection of educational environments and aligning Pakistan’s legislation with global human rights standards advocating for the abolition of the death penalty.”

You can read about Bail in Pakistan (in General) at our main page below:

Legal advice on Bail in Pakistan

And About the law on Absconders & Proclaimed Offenders at the link below:

Law on Absconders and Proclaimed offenders in Pakistan

You can read about the Cancellation of Post and Pre-Arrest Bail here 

Cancellation of (Post Arrest & Pre-Arrest) Bail in Pakistan

The 2022 Amendment made significant alterations to the law, adding a detailed table that provides for specific punishments based on the type and quantity of narcotics involved. The punishments now range from imprisonment of a few months to life imprisonment, including specific monetary fines.

The 2023 Amendment further refines the punishments. It makes two distinct changes to Section 9:

  • In the table under sub-section (1), wherever the words “punishment for death or” appear, they are to be omitted. This effectively removes the death penalty as a punishment for offences related to narcotics.
  • In the table under sub-section (2), in the fourth proviso, the words “may be death or” are to be replaced with “shall be”. This means that, for offences related to psychotropic substances where the quantity exceeds four kilograms, the punishment will be life imprisonment without the possibility of the death penalty.

These amendments, especially the removal of the death penalty, reflect a significant policy shift in the way Pakistan is approaching narcotics-related offences. It seems the state is moving away from capital punishment for drug offences, aligning more with international human rights standards that argue against the death penalty for drug-related crimes.

It’s important for practitioners in the field to be aware of these changes and advise their clients accordingly. The implications for those convicted under these provisions will be significant, particularly in terms of sentencing.

The sections below map show all changes to the original Section 9 through the 2022 and 2023 amendments.

The original Section 9 under the the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997  read as follows :

9. Punishment for contravention of Section6, 7 and 8: Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 6, 7 or 8 shall be punishable with—

(a) imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance is one hundred grams or less;

(b) imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds one hundred grams but does not exceed on kilogram;

(c) death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which may be up to one million rupees, if the quantity of narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds the limits specified in clause (b): Provided that if the quantity exceeds ten kilograms the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life. 

This is Section 9 below after substitution by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022 (XX of 2022), dated 6.9.2022.

[9.    Punishment for contravention of Sections 6, 7 and 8. (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 regarding narcotic drugs shall be punished with punishment as given in column (3) of the TABLE below with regard to offence committed as mentioned in column (2) thereof namely:–

TABLE

S. No.

Offence

Punishment

Type of Narcotics

Quantity

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

Bhang

(a) Up to 999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to three years but shall not be less than six months along-with fine which may be up to ten thousand rupees.

(b) 1000 grams to 9999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than three years along-with fine which may be up to one hundred thousand rupees but not less than ten thousand rupees.

(c) 10000 grams to 19999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than seven years along-with fine which may be up to two hundred thousand rupees but not less than one hundred thousand rupees.

(d) 20000 grams or more.

imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment but shall not be less than fourteen years along-with fine which shall not be less than two hundred thousand rupees.

2.

Post or poppy straw

(a) Up to 999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to four years but shall not be less than eight months along-with fine which may be up to twenty thousand rupees.

(b) 1000 grams to 9999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to eight years but shall not be less than four years along-with fine which may be up to two hundred thousand rupees but shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees.

(c) 10000 grams to 14999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than eight years along-with fine which may be up to three hundred thousand rupees but not less than two hundred thousand rupees.

(d) 15000 grams or more.

imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment but shall not be less than fourteen years along-with fine which shall not be less than three hundred thousand rupees.

3.

Charas

(a) Up to 499 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to five years but shall not be less than ten months along-with fine which may be up to forty thousand rupees.

(b) 500 grams to 999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to nine years but shall not be less than five years along-with fine which may be up to eighty thousand rupees but not less than forty thousand rupees.

(c) 1000 grams to 4999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than nine years along-with fine which may be up to four hundred thousand rupees but not less than eighty thousand rupees.

(d) 5000 grams to 9999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to twenty years but shall not be less than fourteen years along-with fine which may be up to eight hundred thousand rupees but not less than four hundred thousand rupees.

(e) 10000 grams or more.

imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment but shall not be less than twenty years along with fine which shall not be less than eight hundred thousand rupees.

4.

Hashish oil and liquid Hashish

(a) Up to 499 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than fourteen months along-with fine which may be up to forty thousand rupees.

(b) 500 grams to 999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than seven years along-with fine which may be up to eighty thousand rupees but not less than forty thousand rupees.

(c) 1000 grams to 4999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to twenty years but shall not be less than fourteen years along-with fine which may be up to four hundred thousand rupees but not less than eighty thousand rupees.

(d) 5000 grams or more.

imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment but shall not be less than twenty years along-with fine which shall not be less than four hundred thousand rupees.

5.

Opium

(a) Up to 499 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to six years but shall not be less than one ear along-with fine which may be up to fifty thousand rupees.

(b) 500 grams to 999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to nine years but shall not be less than six years along-with fine which may be up to one hundred thousand rupees but not less than fifty thousand rupees.

(c) 1000 grams to 2999 grams.

Imprisonment which may extend to twelve years but shall not be less than nine years along-with fine which may be up to three hundred thousand rupees but not less one hundred thousand rupees.

(d) 3000 grams to 4999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fifteen years but shall not be less than twelve years along-with fine which may be up to five hundred thousand rupees but not less than three hundred thousand rupees.

(e) 5000 grams to 7999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to twenty years but shall not be less than fifteen years along-with fine which may be up to eight hundred thousand rupees but not less than five hundred thousand rupees.

(f) 8000 grams or more.

imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment but shall not be less than twenty years along-with fine which shall not be less than eight hundred thousand rupees.

6.

Heroin and morphine

(a) Up to 99 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than eighteen months along-with fine which may be up to twenty five thousand rupees.

(b) 100 grams to 499 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than seven years along-with fine which may be up to one hundred and twenty-five thousand rupees but not less than twenty-five thousand rupees.

(c) 500 grams to 1999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than ten years along-with fine which may be up to five hundred thousand rupees but not less than one hundred and twenty-five thousand rupees.

(d) 2000 grams to 3999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to twenty years but shall not be less than fourteen years along-with fine which may be up to one million rupees but not less than five hundred thousand rupees.

(e) 4000 grams to 5999 grams.

imprisonment may be for life but shall not be less than twenty years along-with fine which may be up to one and half million rupees but shall not be less than one million rupees.

(f) 6000 grams or more.

punishment for death or imprisonment which shall not be less than life along-with fine which may extend to two million but shall not be less than one and half million rupees.

7.

Cocaine

(a) Up to 99 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than eighteen months along-with fine up to fifty thousand rupees.

(b) 100 grams to 999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fifteen years but shall not be less than seven years along-with fine which may be up to five hundred thousand rupees but not less than fifty thousand rupees.

(c) 1000 grams to 4999 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to twenty years but shall not be less than fifteen years along-with fine which may be up to two million and five hundred thousand rupees but not less than five hundred thousand rupees.

(d) 5000 grams or more.

punishment for death or imprisonment for life but imprisonment shall not be less than twenty years along-with fine which shall not be less than two million and five hundred thousand rupees.

Provided that if an offence is committed relating to narcotic drug inside or near a school, college, university, educational setting or any other educational institution maximum punishment provided for that offence shall be awarded:

Provided further that if any person who has previously been convicted for any offence under this Act is subsequently convicted for the offence relating to narcotic drug; he shall be convicted with maximum punishment provided for that offence.

(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 regarding psychotropic substances shall be punished with punishment as given in column (3) of the TABLE below with regard to quantity of psychotropic substances given in column (2) thereof, namely:–

TABLE

Sr. No.

Offence with regard to quantity of psychotropic substance

Punishment

(1)

(2)

(3)

1

Up to 20 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than two months along-with fine which may be up to fifty thousand rupees.

2

More than 20 grams and up to 50 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to two years but shall not be less than one year along-with fine which may be up to one hundred thousand rupees.

3

More than 50-grams and up to 100 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to three years but shall not be less than two years along-with fine which may be up to two hundred thousand rupees. ·

4

More than 100-grams and up to 500 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to five years but shall not be less than three years along-with fine which may be up to four hundred thousand rupees.

5

More than 500 grams and up to one kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than five years along with fine which may be up to eight hundred thousand rupees.

6

More than one kilo grams and up to two kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than seven years along-with fine which may be up to twelve hundred thousand rupees.

7

More than two kilo grams and up to three kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than ten years along-with fine which may be up to sixteen hundred thousand rupees.

8

More than three kilo grams and up to four kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to twenty years but shall not be than fourteen years along-with fine which may be up to eighteen hundred thousand rupees.

9

Exceeding four kilo grams.

imprisonment which shall not be less than life imprisonment along­with fine which shall not be less than two million rupees.

Provided that if any offence is committed relating to psychotropic substance inside or near a school, college, university, educational setting or any other educational institution, he shall be punishable with maximum punishment provided for that offence:

Provided further that if any person who has previously been convicted for any offence under this Act is subsequently convicted for the offence relating to psychotropic substance and quantity does not exceed two kilograms than he shall be convicted with maximum punishment provided for that offence:

Provided also that if the quantity of psychotropic substance in subsequent offence exceeds two kilograms, the punishment shall not be less than life imprisonment:

Provided further that if recovered psychotropic substance is methamphetamine (ICE) given at serial number 47 of the Schedule-I to this Act and quantity exceeds four kilograms, punishment may be death or life imprisonment and fine which may not be less than two and half million.

(3) Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 regarding controlled substances specified in Table-I and Table-II of the Schedule-II shall be punishable with punishment given in column (3) of the following Table-I and Table II respectively with regard to offence committed as mentioned in column (2) thereof, namely:-

TABLE-I

Sr. No.

Offence with regard to quantity of controlled substance

Punishment

(1)

(2)

(3)

1

Up to 100 grams.

imprisonment which may extend to six months but shall not be less than two months along-with fine which may be up to twenty-five thousand rupees.

2.

More than 100 grams and up to 500 grams

imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months along-with fine which may be up to fifty thousand rupees.

3

More than 500 grams and up to one kilo grams

imprisonment which may extend to three years but shall not be less than one year along-with fine which may be up to one hundred thousand rupees.

4.

More than one kilo grams and up to two kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to five years but shall not be less than three years along-with fine which may be up to one hundred and fifty thousand rupees.

5.

More than two kilo grams and up to five kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than five years along-with fine which may be up to three hundred thousand rupees.

6.

More than five kilo grams and up to seven kilo-grams.

imprisonment which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than seven years along-with fine which may be up to five hundred thousand rupees.

7

More than seven kilo grams and up to ten kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than ten years along-with fine which may be up to seven hundred thousand rupees.

8

Exceeding ten kilo grams.

imprisonment shall not be less than life imprisonment along-with fine which may be up to one million rupees.

TABLE-II

Sr. No.

Offence with regard to quantity of controlled substance

Punishment

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

Up to one kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to six months but shall not be less than two months along-with fine which may be up to ten thousand rupees.

2

More than one kilo grams and up to three kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months along-with fine which may be up to fifty thousand rupees.

3

More than three kilo grams and up to five kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to three years but shall not be less than one year along-with fine which may be up to one hundred thousand rupees.

4

More than five kilo grams and up to ten kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to five years but shall not be less than three years along with fine which may be up to two hundred thousand rupees.

5

More than ten kilo grams and up to twenty kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to seven years but shall not be less than five years along-with fine which may be up to three hundred thousand rupees.

6

More than twenty kilo grams and up to thirty kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than five years along-with fine which may be up to five hundred thousand rupees.

7

More than thirty kilo grams and up to fifty kilo grams.

imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than ten years along-with fine which

may be up to seven hundred thousand rupees.

8

Exceeding fifty kilo grams.

imprisonment shall not be less than life imprisonment along-with fine which may be up to one million rupees.

Provided that if any person who has previously been convicted for any offence under this Act, is subsequently convicted for the offence relating to controlled substances and quantity does not exceed from six kilograms then he shall be convicted with maximum punishment provided for that offence:

Provided further that when the quantity of controlled substances in subsequent offence exceeds from six kilograms the accused shall be punished not less than life imprisonment:

Provided further also that if any accused is found guilty of trafficking narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance into Pakistan or from Pakistan, he shall be convicted with maximum punishment provided for that offence.

9(A) (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or prison rules for the time being in force, no remissions in any sentence shall be allowed to a person, who is convicted under this Act:

Provided that in case of a juvenile or female convicted and sentenced for an offence under this Act, remission, may be granted as deemed appropriate by the Federal Government.

(2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or rules for the time being in force, neither probation in any sentence shall be allowed nor any accused convicted under this Act shall be released on parole:

Provided that if the convicted accused is a juvenile or female, he can be released on probation on parole as per relevant laws and rules.

(3)     Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for time being in force, imprisonment for life under this Act means imprisonment in jail for the period of twenty-five years.]

Below the legal position as of 2023

ACT NO. XXXVIII OF 2023

CONTROL OF NARCOTICS SUBSTANCES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023

An Act further to amend the Control of Narcotics
Substances Act, 1997

[Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part-I, 5th August, 2023]

No. F. 22(10)/2022-Legis., dated 4.8.2023.–The following Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) received the assent of the President on the 2nd August, 2023 is hereby published for general information:–

WHEREAS it is expedient further to amend the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), for the purposes hereinafter appearing;

It is hereby enacted as follows:–

1. Short title and commencement.–This Act may be called the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2023.

(2)  If shall come into force at once.

2. Amendment of Section 9, Act XXV of 1997.–In
the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), in Section 9,–

(i)       in sub-section (1), in the Table, in column (3), the words “punishment for death or”, wherever occurring, shall be omitted; and

(ii)      in sub-section (2), in the Table, in the fourth proviso, for the words “may be death or”, the words “shall be” shall be substituted.

In Brief :

Original Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997:

The original section provided three different tiers of punishments based on the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, or controlled substance. The gravest punishment, potentially death or life imprisonment, was reserved for situations where the substance quantity exceeded the limits specified in clause (b). Additionally, if the quantity exceeded ten kilograms, the punishment was explicitly mandated to be life imprisonment or greater.

2022 Amendment:

The 2022 amendment significantly expanded the scope of Section 9. It introduced detailed tables that specified the punishment corresponding to the exact type of narcotic drug and its quantity. This amendment provided a more granular approach, distinguishing between various narcotics such as Bhang, Charas, Heroin, etc., and setting specific punishments for each category based on the amount. Two significant provisions were added:

  • Harsher punishments for offences committed near educational institutions.
  • Incremental punishments for repeat offenders under this Act.

Moreover, the amendment clarified the implications of ‘life imprisonment’ under this Act, defining it explicitly as 25 years of jail time. The provisions regarding remissions, probations, and paroles were made more stringent, essentially restricting such benefits to juveniles and females, subject to the discretion of the Federal Government.

2023 Amendment:

The 2023 amendment focused on removing the possibility of the death penalty for narcotic-related offences. Wherever the phrase “punishment for death or” appeared in relation to narcotics penalties, it was omitted. This represents a significant shift in the legal stance towards narcotics offences, prioritising life imprisonment over capital punishment.

Implications:

  • The changes reflect a more detailed and nuanced approach to narcotics offences, with the law specifying varying degrees of punishment based on the exact type and quantity of the substance.
  • The 2022 amendment, by specifying harsher punishments for offences near educational institutions, highlights the state’s intent to especially safeguard educational environments from narcotics influence.
  • The repealing of the death penalty in the 2023 amendment is a progressive step, aligning the legislation with global human rights standards that advocate for the gradual abolition of the death penalty.

Points to understand on Bail under Section 9 based on the review of pre-2023 and pre- 2022 case 

The grant or refusal of bail in narcotics offences under section 9 appears to be influenced by the weight of the evidence, the specifics of the narcotic recovered, the credibility of the prosecution’s case, any potential enmity or biases, and the nature of the narcotic substance in question. Additionally, the conduct of the investigation and adherence to procedural norms also seem to play a role in the court’s decision.The crux of many of these cases is whether the accused had “conscious knowledge” of the narcotics and whether the narcotics were in their “active possession”.

In summary, the key factors influencing the decision to grant or refuse bail in narcotics offences under section 9 include the quantity of narcotics recovered, the presence or absence of evidence showing enmity or malice towards the accused, previous convictions, and the nature of the offence. Each case is judged on its own merits, and the decision to grant bail often hinges on the specific circumstances of the case and the evidence presented.

Proof of illegal detention: In some cases, if the accused can prove they were illegally detained, it may influence the decision on bail.

Role differentiation: Differentiating one’s role from a co-accused who has been granted bail can be a strong point.

Medical grounds: Health issues can be a valid reason for granting bail.

Further inquiry: If the case requires further investigation or there are uncertainties, the accused may be granted bail.

Lack of direct evidence: If there’s no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime, it can be a point in favour of bail.

Delay in proceedings: Delays in submitting challans or in trial can also favour the accused.

Nature of the Narcotic Substance: The exact type and form of the narcotic substance in question can be crucial. If there is ambiguity in its identification, it might be leveraged in favour of the accused.

Quantity of Narcotics: The quantity of narcotics recovered plays a vital role in determining the severity of the offence. Larger quantities typically reduce the chances of getting bail.

Forensic Analysis: Positive reports from a Chemical or Forensic Examiner regarding the narcotic nature of the recovered substance significantly bolster the prosecution’s case.

Credibility of Recovery Witnesses: If the witnesses to the recovery process are deemed impartial and without any enmity towards the accused, it strengthens the case against the accused.

Role of Local Police: While local police can register a case upon recovery of narcotics, a prompt handover of the accused and recovered material to Anti-Narcotics Force authorities is essential to maintain the sanctity of the investigation.

Association of Private Witnesses: The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, due to Section 25, excludes the necessity of private witnesses in the recovery process.

Technicalities and Procedures: Minor discrepancies in documentation or procedures should be highlighted, especially if they can cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Delay in Procedures: Delays in sending recovered narcotics for analysis might be leveraged, especially if they contravene prescribed guidelines or rules.

Criminal History of the Accused: A clean prior record can be used as a point in favour of the accused when seeking bail.

Location of Recovery: If narcotics are recovered from a shared or public space, and not directly from the person of the accused, it can be a point of contention.

Statutory Ground of Delay: Extended periods of detention without trial or prolonged trial durations can be used as grounds to seek bail, as seen in the case of MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs. State.

Punishment Severity: Highlighting the severity of the punishment associated with the offence can sometimes be a double-edged sword. While it underscores the seriousness of the offence, it might also be used to argue against prolonged pre-trial detention.

Personal Circumstances of the Accused: Factors such as having dependents or health issues can be presented to argue in favour of granting bail.

Incarceration Purpose: If the accused’s detention serves no added purpose, especially post the completion of the investigation, it can be used as a point to argue for bail.

Sentencing Policy: While the sentencing policy isn’t typically applied at the bail stage, any leniencies or considerations in the policy can be highlighted during bail arguments.

Conscious Possession: Determining whether the accused had conscious knowledge of the narcotics in question can be pivotal. If there’s doubt about the accused’s knowledge, it can be used in their favour.

Takeaways from Analysis and Breakdown of certain cases : Recurring themes in Bail 

Cases Involving Large Quantities of Narcotics: In cases such as the one cited from 2022 SCMR 840, where a considerable quantity of narcotics was found, the amendments might introduce stricter penalties or guidelines, making it even more challenging for the accused to obtain bail.

Cases with Positive Chemical Examiner’s Reports: In instances where the Chemical Examiner’s report is positive, as seen in the 2022 MLD 735 case, the amendments could potentially reinforce the weight of such reports, making it a more critical piece of evidence in the court’s decision-making process.

Cases Involving Borderline Quantities: For cases like the 2022 MLD 905 citation, where the quantity of narcotics is borderline, the amendments might provide clearer guidelines on how such cases should be handled, possibly influencing the court’s decision on granting bail.

Cases with Delayed Trials: In situations where the trial is delayed, as seen in the 2020 YLRN 104 case, the amendments might introduce measures to expedite the trial process, ensuring that the accused does not serve a significant portion of their potential sentence before the trial concludes.

Cases Involving Infants in Jail: The 2021 PCrLJN 34 citation highlights a situation where an infant is detained in jail with the mother (accused). The amendments could potentially introduce provisions to better protect the welfare of children in such situations.

Cases with Issues of False Involvement: In cases where there are allegations of false involvement or political animosity, like the 2020 MLD 282 citation, the amendments might provide more robust mechanisms to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation and trial.

Cases Involving Previous Non-Convicts: For accused who are previous non-convicts, as mentioned in the 2020 YLRN 8 case, the amendments might introduce provisions that take this into consideration when deciding on bail.

Cases with International Implications: In instances where the accused is caught at an international departure section, like in the 2022 YLRN 88 citation, the amendments could potentially introduce stricter measures and cooperation mechanisms with international authorities to curb drug trafficking.

Cases Registered Under Repealed Acts: The 2021 MLD 272 citation highlights a case registered under a repealed act. The amendments might provide clearer guidelines on how such cases should be transitioned and handled under the new legal framework.

Type and Quantity of Narcotics: The amendments have specific provisions based on the type and quantity of narcotics involved. Understanding these details will be crucial in assessing the potential outcomes in terms of bail.

Criminal History of the Accused: The amendments also consider the criminal history of the accused, particularly if they have been previously convicted for any offence under the Act. This will be a significant factor in bail considerations.

Location of the Offence: The proximity of the offence to educational institutions is highlighted in the amendments, and this could influence the court’s decision on granting bail.

Quantity Matters: The quantity of narcotics recovered plays a crucial role in determining the charges and the potential for bail. For instance, in some cases, the distinction between S.9(b) and S.9(c) becomes significant because it determines whether the maximum punishment is death or imprisonment for a specific term. The borderline cases, where the quantity marginally exceeds the defined limit, are especially contentious.

Recovery and Evidence: The presence of independent witnesses during recovery and the circumstances of recovery are pivotal. The credibility of the recovery often comes into question, especially when there are no independent witnesses. In various cases, the absence of independent witnesses or the questionable credibility of police officials involved in the recovery played a role in the decision-making process for bail.

Medical Grounds: In certain cases, medical reasons, like severe health conditions of the accused, have been considered. However, these grounds alone may not override the prohibitions against bail in grave offences.

Delay in Proceedings: Delays in trial or submission of necessary reports, such as those from forensic laboratories, have been considered as grounds for granting bail in some cases. However, the reason for the delay, whether attributed to the prosecution or the defence, is crucial in such considerations.

Identity and Role of the Accused: In several instances, the role of the accused, their presence at the crime scene, or their specific involvement in the offence has been a decisive factor. For instance, whether the accused was merely present at the location, their role in the trafficking or possession, and the evidence linking them directly to the crime are all crucial considerations.

Jurisdiction and Investigative Procedures: The legality of the investigation, especially the rank of the investigating officer and the procedures followed, have been challenged in certain cases. Such procedural lapses, if proven, can impact the validity of the charges and the subsequent trial.

Consistency Rule: There’s a principle of maintaining consistency in decisions. If co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail, this might weigh in favour of granting bail to another accused in the same case.

Misuse of Bail: In certain cases, the accused’s conduct after being granted bail, such as influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, has led to the cancellation of bail.

Youth and Education: In the case of GUL REHMAN vs State (2006 YLR 207 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the tender age of the accused was considered, especially when he was a regular student. The potential harm to the educational career of a young individual was deemed a significant factor in the granting of bail.

Irregularities in Procedure: In MUMTAZ AHMAD vs State (2006 YLR 1975 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the failure to properly handle and document evidence (specifically the mixing of contents of recovered packets) was deemed curious and suggestive of further inquiry.

Medical Grounds and Treatment: In MUHAMMAD ASGHAR MOGHAL vs State (2006 PLD 244 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the court emphasized that for bail to be granted on medical grounds, there must be strong reasons to believe that the treatment for the accused’s illness isn’t possible in jail despite advanced medical technology.

Evidence and Connection with Crime: In multiple cases, including MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs State (2006 YLR 3095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE) and GHULAM QADIR vs State (2006 YLR 3009 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the lack of clear evidence linking the accused to the narcotics or the crime was a factor in granting bail. In the former, the prosecution couldn’t prove the recovered amount was the sale proceeds of any narcotic substance. In the latter, the accused was implicated merely based on the alleged disclosure by a co-accused, which the court found insufficient.

Tentative Assessment: In THE STATE vs KHALID SHARIF (2006 SCMR 1265 SUPREME-COURT), the court clarified that bail applications should be based on the material available on record, and the court is required to form a tentative assessment of the evidence available.

Nature of Recovered Substance: In MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs State (2006 PCRLJ 1595 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the nature of the recovered material played a significant role in bail considerations. If the recovered substance doesn’t align with the definitions in the Narcotics Act, it can lead to the case being subject to further inquiry.

Role of Accused in Crime: In cases like TAJ MUHAMMAD vs State (2006 PCRLJ 830 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the court looked into the specific role or connection of the accused with the crime. If the accused is merely implicated based on another’s statement or if there’s a lack of direct evidence connecting them to the crime, bail can be considered.

Health and Medical Treatment: As reiterated in MUHAMMAD AMIN vs State (2007 MLD 1127 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH) and Dr. EMMANUEL ONUWABUCHI KEKE vs State (2006 YLR 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the health of the accused and the availability of medical treatment in jail are significant considerations for granting bail.

Abuse of Process and Unfounded Allegations: In MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ QURESHI vs State (2006 PLD 300 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the court highlighted that the continued harassment of an accused through a trial that isn’t likely to end in conviction amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.

Presence and Control Over the Narcotics:The court evaluates whether the accused had actual possession or control over the narcotics. In MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs State (2010 YLR 2811 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), no one was apprehended from the car transporting narcotics, and nothing was recovered from the direct personal possession of the accused, thus favouring his release on bail.Conversely, in cases where an accused is found red-handed or in direct possession of narcotics, the chances of obtaining bail reduce. This was evident in the case of QADAR KHAN alias DOCTOR KHAN alias GUL MUHAMMAD vs State (2010 YLR 284 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT) where the accused was caught red-handed, making his case for bail non-arguable.

Weight of the Narcotic Substance:The exact weight of the recovered narcotic substance is a significant determinant in bail decisions. In ASGHAR ALI vs State (2009 PCrLJ 660 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the court considered granting bail due to the lesser weight of the recovered heroin.

Quality of Prosecution’s Case:A weak or doubtful prosecution case can favour the granting of bail. For instance, in MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs State (2010 PCrLJ 572 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the prosecution witnesses did not support the case, and even the complainant faced repercussions for registering a false case. As a result, the accused was admitted to bail. Similarly, in GHULAM ALI vs State (2009 MLD 856 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the FIR did not properly detail the recovered narcotic substance’s condition, making the prosecution’s case doubtful and paving the way for the accused’s bail.

Magnitude of Narcotics Recovery: In cases where a significant quantity of narcotics has been recovered, the granting of bail may not be deemed sustainable in law. This is particularly true if chemical reports affirm the illicit nature of the substances. Citation: 2011 SCMR 1408 SUPREME-COURT

Preliminary Assessment at Bail Stage: A deeper dive into the record isn’t typically undertaken at the bail stage. The focus is primarily on determining whether the accused is, on the face of it, connected to the commission of the offence. Citation: 2011 YLR 2316 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Exclusive Possession: The High Court may err if it observes that the accused was not found in exclusive possession of narcotics. The prosecution’s case, if pointing towards the accused’s possession, can lead to bail cancellation. Citation: 2010 SCMR 61 SUPREME-COURT

Threshold Quantity Matters: There’s a designated threshold quantity under S.9(c). If the recovery exceeds this limit (even if by a margin), it can influence bail decisions. Citation: 2010 YLR 2297 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Benefit of Doubt: If the quantity of narcotics recovered is on the higher side but close to an upper limit of a category, and the accused has no prior convictions, they may be granted bail. Citation: 2010 MLD 1891 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Reliability on Police Officials: In some cases, if the only evidence against the accused is a statement from another principal accused (which may have been retracted), the case can become arguable for bail purposes. Citation: 2010 YLR 284 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Role of Expert Reports: The availability and positive results of expert reports, especially from Chemical Examiners, play a crucial role in bail decisions. A positive report can strengthen the case against the accused. Citation: 2010 PCrLJ 1696 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Principle of Consistency: If the case of an accused is identical to another co-accused who has been granted bail, they might also be granted bail, following the rule of consistency. Citation: 2010 YLR 701 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

See also  PPRA Rules Query on Pre-Qualification Blacklisting

Compliance with Procedural Requirements: Non-compliance with certain sections of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, especially those requiring the presence of independent witnesses during recovery, can influence bail decisions. The role of private witnesses and compliance with statutory requirements can sometimes play a significant role in bail decisions. Citation: 2011 YLR 2356 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Consideration of Medical Grounds: Medical conditions of the accused can be considered for bail, but they need to be significant and well-documented. Merely having a medical condition might not be enough. Citation: 2011 YLR 923 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Dangerous Nature of the Crime: Persons involved in drug trafficking can be deemed “dangerous criminals”, particularly if their actions have a broad societal impact. This can influence bail decisions. Citation: 2011 PLD 544 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Juvenile Consideration: The age of the accused can be a factor, especially if they fall under juvenile categorisation. This can lead to considerations under specific juvenile justice provisions. Citation: 2011 MLD 487 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Other considerations (1) The nature and weight of the evidence against the accused.(2) Whether the narcotic’s possession falls within a borderline case between different subsections of section 9. (3)The credibility and role of police officials in the case, especially in scenarios where there might be potential for bias or grudge. (4) Previous criminal records or instances of the accused. (4) The consistency rule, where if co-accused or similarly situated individuals have been granted bail, it may favour granting bail to the accused. (5) Technicalities, such as the rank of the police officer conducting the search or the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence, can also play a significant role.(

Association of Private Witnesses: In several cases, the lack of private or independent witnesses during the recovery proceedings was a notable factor. If no private person was associated as an attesting witness during the recovery, especially in populated areas, this can be used as a ground for bail. Citation: 2017 PCrLJN 56 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Sanctity of Home and Proper Search Procedures: Entry into a home without permission of its occupants and without obtaining a proper search warrant can be a strong ground. Violating the sanctity of a home is not permitted. Citation: 2017 PCrLJ 1317 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Welfare of Minors: The presence and welfare of minors, especially if they are with the accused during arrest or inside the jail, can be a compelling reason for bail. The welfare of a child can outweigh the alleged crime committed by the parent. Citation: 2017 MLD 1367 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Delay in Trial: A prolonged delay in the trial, especially if the accused has been behind bars for an extended period without substantial progress in the case, can be a factor for granting bail. Citation: 2017 PCrLJ 1661 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Questionable Recovery Procedures: Any discrepancy in the recovery procedures, like non-separation of samples for chemical analysis on the spot, can be a ground for bail. Additionally, if the weight of the recovered substance is not disclosed or is mentioned approximately, it can raise doubts about the authenticity of the recovery. Citation: 2017 YLR 2141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Youth and First-time Offenders: Young individuals, especially those below the age of 18, who are first-time offenders and have no chance of absconding, can have a stronger case for bail. Citation: 2017 YLR 1134 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Huge Quantity and Direct Connection: Being apprehended red-handed with a significant quantity of narcotics can weigh heavily against the accused. If there’s a direct connection between the accused and the narcotics, it can be challenging to secure bail. Citation: 2018 PCrLJ 66 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Borderline Cases: If the present case hovers between sub-clauses of Section 9, such as between 9(b) and 9(c), the quantum of punishment to be awarded becomes a factor. This uncertainty can lead to bail being granted. Citation: 2018 PCrLJ 467 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Ambiguities in FIR and Recovery: If there are ambiguities in the FIR or the recovery process, such as the absence of details like registration number of the vehicle or the person who informed the police, it can be grounds for bail. Citation: 2018 YLR 1674 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Presence of Valid Licences: If the accused possesses a valid license for any recovered items, such as arms, it can work in their favour. Citation: 2018 PCrLJN 157 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Quantity of Narcotics: One of the primary considerations for granting or refusing bail is the quantity of narcotics recovered from the accused. Cases where huge quantities of narcotics are involved, the courts are generally inclined towards refusing bail. In the case of NAEEM AKHTAR alias ALI HAIDER vs. State [2018 PCrLJ 66 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH], a substantial quantity of narcotics was a significant reason for refusing bail.

Delay in Registration of FIR: Any delay in the registration of the FIR can affect the decision on bail. However, if the delay is appropriately explained, it might not be detrimental to the prosecution case. This was evident in the case of NAEEM AKHTAR alias ALI HAIDER vs. State.

Past Criminal Record: An accused’s past history, especially relating to similar offences, can influence the decision on bail. As in MUHAMMAD AFZAAL vs. State [2018 YLRN 85 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT], the accused’s past history of involvement in narcotic offences played a role in the refusal of bail.

Evidence & Witnesses: The presence of strong evidence, such as positive reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory and the testimony of witnesses, especially police officials, can be decisive in refusing bail. This is seen in BABAR JAMEEL vs. State [2018 PCrLJ 473 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH] and JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANU vs. State [2018 YLR 190 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH].

Nature of the Substance: The specific narcotic substance in question and its classification under the law can also determine the outcome on bail. For instance, in MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs. State [2018 MLD 1416 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE], the recovery of “Bhang” without specifying parts led to the grant of bail, considering the ambiguity in its classification.

Association of Independent Witnesses: The involvement or lack thereof of independent witnesses during the recovery process can play a crucial role. As in RIASAT alias SATI vs. The STATE [2018 MLD 1942 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR], the failure of the police to associate any private person as a witness made the prosecution’s story doubtful, resulting in the grant of bail.

Connection with the Offence: It’s crucial to establish a clear connection between the accused and the offence. As observed in ZAIB KHAN vs. State [2018 PCrLJN 145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT], the accused’s connection with the crime was established prima facie, leading to the refusal of bail.

Duration of Detention: The length of time an accused has been detained without trial can influence the decision on bail. In MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs. State and RIASAT alias SATI vs. The STATE, the accused were granted bail, partly due to the prolonged detention without trial.

Exclusivity of Possession: Whether the narcotics were found in the exclusive possession of the accused can be a determining factor. In ASHIQ ALI vs. State [2018 PCrLJ 225 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT], the recovery was not from the direct possession of the accused, leading to a grant of bail.

Technicalities: Courts tend to overlook technicalities in narcotic cases, especially when the offence is considered heinous and against society at large. This perspective is evident in MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN vs. State [2018 PCrLJN 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH].

Forensic Evidence In SHOAIB vs. State (2018 MLD 1088 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the court highlighted the importance of forensic evidence. The claim that the recovered substance was ‘garda’ but was shown as ‘solid brown’ in the forensic report was dismissed at the bail stage. The court noted that both tests were in affirmation, and due to the substantial recovery from the accused, bail was refused1.

Arrest by Local Police: In the case of CHACK MATAR vs. State (2018 PCrLJ 389 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court), the court dismissed the contention that the arrest by local police was illegal. It was emphasized that even private individuals could arrest someone for a non-bailable offence. However, it was crucial that the accused and recovered material be handed over to Anti-Narcotics Force authorities promptly.

Applicability of Other Provisions: In two cases, SULTAN ROOM BADSHAH URF BACHA vs. State (2018 PCrLJN 228 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH) and Dil MURAD vs. State (2018 YLRN 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), it was held that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, expressly excludes the provision of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases.

Consideration of the Grounds for Bail: The case CHAN ZEB vs. State (2018 YLRN 122 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT) presents a scenario where bail was granted. The primary material against the accused was a statement from a co-accused, which was not considered as evidence. Moreover, nothing was recovered directly from the accused, and there was no past record of similar offences. In another instance, Mst. SAMINA vs. State (2018 YLR 2253 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), despite a significant recovery of narcotics, the court considered the circumstantial context (lady accused with a young child) in granting bail.

Statutory Ground of Delay: In the case MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs. State (2018 YLRN 150 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), bail was granted solely on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial, as the accused had spent a considerable amount of time in jail without trial progress.

Weight of the Recovered Substance: In GHULAM NABI vs. State (2018 PCrLJ 268 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the court granted bail noting the doubt in the prosecution’s case regarding the feasibility of carrying the recovered substance in the manner described.

Competency of Forensic Labs: The case AURANGZEB vs. State (2018 PCrLJ 1125 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT) dealt with the plea that the Forensic Science Laboratory wasn’t competent to examine the recovered tablets. The court ruled that discussing the lab’s competency would be a deeper appreciation for the Trial Court, and based on witness accounts, bail was refused.

Non-Existent Criminal Record: The lack of a criminal record doesn’t automatically qualify one for bail. As seen in SULTAN ROOM BADSHAH URF BACHA vs. State (2018 PCrLJN 228 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the non-existence of a criminal record couldn’t be the sole basis for the grant of bail. This indicates that the absence of a criminal record, while favourable, isn’t a determining factor in itself.

Recovery and Credibility of Witness: As observed in Dil MURAD vs. State (2018 YLRN 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the entire seizure of the narcotic was sent for examination and was confirmed to be a narcotic. This indicates that the authenticity of the recovery and the credibility of the witness play a crucial role in bail decisions

Specific Grounds for Refusal: In the case of AURANGZEB vs. State (2018 PCrLJ 1125 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the witnesses, who bore no ill-will against the accused, fully supported the recovery narrative. Hence, witness testimony that aligns with the prosecution’s narrative can be a strong ground for refusing bail

Physical Possession and Nature of Recovery: The nature of recovery and whether the accused had direct possession plays a role in bail decisions. For instance, in GHULAM NABI vs. State (2018 PCrLJ 268 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the prosecution’s account of how the accused carried the narcotic raised questions, leading to the grant of bail.

Conditions of the Accused: Personal circumstances can also influence bail decisions. In Mst. SAMINA vs. State (2018 YLR 2253 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the court considered the accused’s situation, being a lady with a young child, as a factor in granting bail.

Connection with the Offence: In multiple cases, the court looked at whether the accused was prima facie connected with the commission of the offence. This connection, especially when backed by substantial evidence or witness testimony, often leads to the refusal of bail.

Significance of Punishment for Offence: In MUHAMMAD LAIQ alias SUHNO vs. State (2018 PCrLJ 227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the court underscored the severity of the punishment under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which could range from death, imprisonment for life, or up to fourteen years imprisonment, along with a hefty fine

Efficacy of Chemical Analysis: The positive report from the Chemical Examiner regarding the recovered narcotic substance played a pivotal role in the refusal of bail in the aforementioned case. The court considered such evidence as compelling proof against the accused.

Exclusion of Private Witnesses: The court in the MUHAMMAD LAIQ alias SUHNO case also emphasized that the association of private witnesses was not a requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 due to Section 25, which excluded the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

Technicalities and Procedures:Minor discrepancies, such as the non-mentioning of the number of slabs of the narcotic substance in the FIR and recovery memo, were deemed non-fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially when other details, like the number of packets, were mentioned.

The delay in sending the case property to the Chemical Analyzer was considered inconsequential, as Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substance (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which prescribed a 72-hour window for sending contraband articles to the Chemical Analyzer, was seen as directory and not mandatory

Role of Local Police: Reiterating the previous point from the CHACK MATAR vs. State (2018 PCrLJ 389 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court) case, while the local police can register a case upon recovery of narcotics, the accused and the recovered material must be promptly handed over to Anti-Narcotics Force authorities. This ensures that the objectives of the Special Law are not compromised

Conscious Possession and Behavior at the Scene: In the case of MUHAMMAD NAEEM (2009 MLD 1490), the accused did not attempt to flee the scene upon seeing the police, suggesting that he might not have been aware of the contraband in his vehicle. This raised questions about his conscious possession of the narcotic substance, leading to the court determining that further inquiry was needed and thus granting bail.

Credibility of Prosecution’s Story: In ZULQARNAIN SIKANDAR’s case (2009 PCrLJ 1089), the prosecution’s narrative was found to lack credibility, leading to doubts about the accused’s involvement. When a prosecution story does not inspire confidence, this can weigh in favour of granting bail.

Recovery and Chemical Examination: GHULAM ALI’s case (2009 MLD 856) highlighted the importance of providing details about the recovery and subsequent chemical examination of the narcotics. Ambiguities in the prosecution’s account, such as not detailing how the substance was sent for examination, can make the case one of further inquiry, favouring bail.

Severity of Offence and Nature of Contraband: MALITA SYED SHAH’s case (2009 YLR 1029) emphasised that bail might be denied when the accused is found with a substantial quantity of a particularly dangerous narcotic, like heroin, especially if they attempted international smuggling.

Circumstances and Consideration for Minors: Mst. SHAHEEN’s case (2009 PCrLJ 475) was unique in that bail was granted primarily because the accused’s minor children were in custody with her. The court was concerned about the psychological impact on the children.

Role of Accused and Quantity of Narcotics: BAZ MUHAMMAD’s case (2009 MLD 115) showcased that an accused’s specific role, such as booking a consignment containing concealed narcotics, can lead to the denial of bail. The quantity of narcotics involved also plays a role in determining eligibility for bail.

Condition of the Accused: Mst. SHAH JEHAN BIBI’s case (2009 PCrLJ 702) highlighted that while the facts might not favour bail, the physical condition or status of the accused, such as being a nursing mother, might tilt the balance in their favour.

Determination of Narcotic Substance: In ASIF MEHMOOD’s case (2009 YLR 1040), the nature of the substance and its classification under the Act was in question. If there’s doubt about whether the substance falls under the Act’s domain, it can be a ground for further inquiry and potential bail.

Quantum of Recovery and Its Impact on Punishment:

The court often considers the amount of narcotics recovered when assessing bail applications. In MUHAMMAD WALI vs State (2010 YLR 2130 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT), the recovery of 80 grams of heroin and small currency notes indicated the accused’s involvement in selling narcotics. Given the damage that such drugs inflict on society, especially the youth, individuals engaged in such activities are less likely to be granted bail.

Validity of the Prosecution’s Case:

In instances where the prosecution’s witnesses do not support the case or when there’s evidence of false implication, the accused is more likely to be granted bail. This was evident in MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs State (2010 PCrLJ 572 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH) where the prosecution witnesses didn’t back the case, and there were repercussions for the complainant for registering a false case.

Direct Possession and Knowledge of Narcotics:

Whether the narcotics were recovered directly from the accused plays a crucial role in bail decisions. In SAFDAR vs State (2010 YLR 2258 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the charas was not recovered from the direct custody of the accused. The question of whether the accused knew about the narcotics in the car or shared such knowledge with co-accused would be determined after recording evidence. Given the circumstances, the accused was granted bail.

Chemical Analysis and Proper Documentation:

Proper documentation and analysis of the recovered narcotics are pivotal. In MAHMOOD NAWAZ alias MITHOO vs State (2010 MLD 1075 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), there was ambiguity regarding the sample taken for chemical analysis. The court deemed that no conclusive finding could be recorded, making the case suitable for bail.

Impact on Society and Heinousness of the Crime:

The court often evaluates the broader societal impact of the accused’s alleged activities. In State through Director-General, Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi vs ABDUL GHANI (2010 SCMR 1160 SUPREME-COURT), the accused was considered to be involved in a heinous crime that affects a significant portion of society, making him ineligible for bail.

Statutory Delay and Provisions for Women:

Provisions related to statutory delay and special considerations for women can influence bail decisions. In Miss FAREEDA vs State (2010 YLR 1610 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH), the accused was granted bail based on the amendment in Cr.P.C. that extended relief to women prisoners.

Trafficking and its Implications:

Involvement in drug trafficking, especially on a large scale, can lead to bail denial. Rana NASARULLAH vs State (2011 PLD 544 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE) underscored this, where the accused was found with a significant quantity of charas and was involved in drug trafficking. Such offences have a direct impact on the public, making individuals involved in them “dangerous criminals”.

Connection to the Offence: If there’s substantive material on record connecting the accused with the commission of the alleged offence, bail is likely to be denied, as seen in both cases

Further comments on the 2022 Amendment and impact on future cases under Section 9 

This amendment has brought a clear delineation of the punishments concerning different narcotics, psychotropic substances, and controlled substances based on their respective quantities. It has also introduced specific guidelines for punishments related to trafficking and has set distinct provisions concerning remissions, parole, and probation.

Notable points from the 2022 Amendment:

Delineation of Punishments: The 2022 Amendment categorically lists the punishments for different narcotics, including Bhang, Charas, Hashish oil, Opium, Heroin, and Cocaine, based on their quantities. This provides a clear framework for the judiciary to assign punishments in narcotic-related cases.

Stipulations on Remissions, Parole, and Probation: The Amendment clarifies that individuals convicted under this Act are not eligible for remissions in their sentences, probation, or parole, with exceptions for juveniles and females. This introduces a stricter regime for narcotics-related offences.

Trafficking: An explicit provision has been introduced, stating that individuals found guilty of trafficking narcotics into or from Pakistan shall be convicted with the maximum punishment provided for that offence. This underscores the intention to severely penalise trafficking offences.

Considering the above and the 2023 Amendment:

The 2022 Amendment has laid down a comprehensive structure of punishments based on the type and quantity of narcotics involved. This aids in bringing clarity and reducing ambiguity in the judiciary’s decisions.

The 2023 Amendment, which primarily focuses on the removal of the death penalty, must be read in conjunction with the 2022 Amendment to get a holistic understanding of the punishments for narcotics offences. Specifically, the 2023 Amendment’s changes apply to the cases where the death penalty was stipulated, such as for possession of 6000 grams or more of Heroin and morphine or 5000 grams or more of Cocaine.

For the cases you provided, the relevance of the 2022 Amendment would be to determine the specific punishments for each offence based on the type and quantity of narcotics. It would also establish the applicability of remissions, parole, or probation for the accused, especially if they are juveniles or females.

In conclusion, the 2022 Amendment to the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has provided a structured framework for punishments based on the type and quantity of narcotics. It has also introduced stringent measures against trafficking and set clear guidelines on remissions, parole, and probation. When read in conjunction with the 2023 Amendment, it offers a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape for narcotics-related offences in Pakistan.

Main Discussion

The Original Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997:

The original section provided three different tiers of punishments based on the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, or controlled substance. The gravest punishment, potentially death or life imprisonment, was reserved for situations where the substance quantity exceeded the limits specified in clause (b). Additionally, if the quantity exceeded ten kilograms, the punishment was explicitly mandated to be life imprisonment or greater.

2022 Amendment:

The 2022 amendment significantly expanded the scope of Section 9. It introduced detailed tables that specified the punishment corresponding to the exact type of narcotic drug and its quantity. This amendment provided a more granular approach, distinguishing between various narcotics such as Bhang, Charas, Heroin, etc., and setting specific punishments for each category based on the amount. Two significant provisions were added:

  • Harsher punishments for offences committed near educational institutions.
  • Incremental punishments for repeat offenders under this Act.

Moreover, the amendment clarified the implications of ‘life imprisonment’ under this Act, defining it explicitly as 25 years of jail time. The provisions regarding remissions, probations, and paroles were made more stringent, essentially restricting such benefits to juveniles and females, subject to the discretion of the Federal Government.

2023 Amendment:

The 2023 amendment focused on removing the possibility of the death penalty for narcotic-related offences. Wherever the phrase “punishment for death or” appeared in relation to narcotics penalties, it was omitted. This represents a significant shift in the legal stance towards narcotics offences, prioritising life imprisonment over capital punishment.

Implications:

  • The changes reflect a more detailed and nuanced approach to narcotics offences, with the law specifying varying degrees of punishment based on the exact type and quantity of the substance.
  • The 2022 amendment, by specifying harsher punishments for offences near educational institutions, highlights the state’s intent to especially safeguard educational environments from narcotics influence.
  • The repealing of the death penalty in the 2023 amendment is a progressive step, aligning the legislation with global human rights standards that advocate for the gradual abolition of the death penalty.

Impact of the 2022 Amendment of Section 9 of  the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

From the 2022 version of Section 9, it’s evident that there have been significant changes and expansions in terms of the classification of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and controlled substances, along with their associated quantities and corresponding penalties.

The new version presents a more detailed breakdown of different types of narcotics and their associated penalties based on quantity. It categorises the substances into specific types such as Bhang, Poppy Straw, Charas, Hashish Oil, Opium, Heroin, and Cocaine. Each category has a detailed list of quantities and their corresponding punishments.

A few key observations on the changes:

  • Detailed Classification: The new version introduces a clear classification of various drugs, allowing for specific punishments tailored to each drug type and quantity. This granularity provides clearer guidance on penalties, potentially ensuring that punishments are more proportionate to the offence.
  • Higher Penalties: The updated version seems to have enhanced penalties for certain quantities and types of drugs. This might reflect the government’s approach to combat the rising challenges associated with drug trafficking and abuse.
  • Special Provisions: The new version includes provisions that address offences committed near educational institutions, repeat offenders, and trafficking into or from Pakistan. These provisions signify an intention to penalise more heavily for offences that have broader societal implications or reflect a pattern of criminal behaviour.
  • Restrictions on Remissions and Parole: A notable addition is the explicit restriction on remissions, probation, and parole for those convicted under this Act. This strict stance may serve as a deterrent, ensuring that convicted individuals serve a significant portion, if not all, of their sentences.
  • Considerations for Juveniles and Females: There’s an acknowledgment of the need for a more compassionate approach towards juveniles and females, allowing for possible remissions and parole under specific conditions. This suggests a recognition of the different rehabilitation needs and societal implications for these groups.

From the 2022 amendment, It is clear that the updated Section 9 aims to provide a more comprehensive framework for addressing drug-related offences in Pakistan. If you would like a more in-depth comparative analysis or assistance in drafting documents related to this, please let me know. 

Changes in Section 9:

  • Granularity of Punishments: The 2022 version introduced a comprehensive breakdown of drugs and their corresponding punishments based on quantity. This specificity makes the law clearer in terms of what penalties apply to which quantities and types of drugs.
  • Enhanced Penalties: The updated version has generally increased the penalties for drug offences, especially for larger quantities.
  • Addition of Specific Drug Types: The newer version clearly mentions specific drugs like Bhang, Poppy Straw, Charas, Hashish Oil, and others, which wasn’t present in the older version.
  • Provisions for Aggravating Circumstances: The new law has added specific provisions that address offences committed near educational institutions and for repeat offenders, indicating a stricter stance on these.
  • Limitations on Remissions and Parole: The newer version has introduced explicit restrictions on remissions, probation, and parole for those convicted under this Act.
  • Provisions for Juveniles and Females: The updated law provides exceptions for juveniles and females, allowing for potential remissions and parole under specific conditions.

Implications for Bail under Section 9:

Given the enhanced penalties and the explicit restrictions on remissions and parole, securing bail for offences under Section 9 may become more challenging. Higher penalties generally reflect the seriousness with which the state views the offence, which can influence a court’s decision on granting bail. Specifically:

  • Repeat Offenders: The Act is much stricter for those with prior convictions under this law, implying that securing bail for repeat offenders might be more difficult.
  • Offences Near Educational Institutions: Offences committed near schools and other educational institutions carry the maximum penalties, which may make courts more hesitant to grant bail in such cases.
  • Nature and Quantity of the Substance: The detailed breakdown means that bail considerations will likely take into account the specific drug and quantity involved. Offences involving larger quantities or more harmful substances may face increased scrutiny.

Usefulness of Old Case Law:

Even though the Act has been amended, old case law can still be relevant in several ways:

  • Interpretation of Legal Terms: Any terms or phrases that remain unchanged in the new Act can still be interpreted using precedents set by old case law.
  • Guidance on Legal Principles: Fundamental legal principles or reasoning used in old cases may still apply, even if the specifics of the law have changed.
  • Persuasion: While old case law might not be binding given the changes in the Act, it can still be used persuasively to argue for a particular interpretation or application of the new law.
  • Gaps in the New Law: In situations where the new Act might be silent or ambiguous on a particular issue, old case law can provide guidance until new precedents are established for the amended Act.

In conclusion, while the updated Section 9 introduces more detailed and generally stricter penalties for drug offences, old case law can still play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the Act. 

Future Implications and Strategy Considerations:

  • Bail Applications: Given the stricter provisions, lawyers may need to be more meticulous when drafting bail applications. Highlighting factors such as the absence of prior convictions, personal circumstances, the non-violent nature of the offence, and the lack of threat to society can be influential.
  • Burden of Proof: Given the enhanced penalties, the prosecution might face a higher burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Defence lawyers should be vigilant in ensuring that every aspect of the prosecution’s evidence is scrutinised.
  • Rehabilitation and Alternative Punishments: Given the strict nature of the penalties, it may be prudent for defence attorneys to emphasise the potential for rehabilitation, especially for first-time offenders. Proposing alternative punishments like drug rehabilitation or community service could be considered, especially in cases involving minor quantities or where the offence was committed due to addiction rather than for trafficking or commercial purposes.
  • Challenging Evidence: Given the specificity of drug types and quantities in the new Act, challenging the methods of seizure, storage, and testing of the narcotics can be crucial. Any discrepancies or mishandlings can be grounds for dismissal or reduced charges.
  • Utilising Case Law: While the Act has evolved, the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and due process remain. Lawyers can leverage precedents that highlight these principles, even if they’re based on the older version of the Act.

In summary, while the 2022 version of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 introduces more stringent provisions, it also provides an opportunity for legal practitioners to adapt and refine their strategies. With careful planning, a deep understanding of the Act, and a proactive approach, lawyers can ensure that they provide the best possible defence for their clients while also contributing to a broader societal understanding of the implications of the Act. 

Impact of the 2023 Amendment of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

The primary change introduced by the 2023 amendment is the omission of the death penalty as a potential punishment for offences under Section 9 of the Act. Specifically:

  • In sub-section (1) of Section 9, wherever the option for the death penalty appears in the punishments, it has been removed.
  • In sub-section (2), where the punishment “may be death or” is mentioned, the words “shall be” have replaced it, effectively removing the possibility of the death penalty.

Implications for Future Bail, Prosecution, and Defence Cases:

  • Reduced Severity in Punishments: The removal of the death penalty signifies a shift towards less severe punishments. This change might reflect evolving societal views on capital punishment and its appropriateness for drug offences.
  • Bail Considerations: The removal of the death penalty could have implications for bail applications. While the offences remain severe, the potential consequences are no longer as extreme. Courts might be more inclined to grant bail, especially in borderline cases, given the reduced maximum penalty.
  • Prosecution Strategy: Prosecutors might need to recalibrate their approach. With the death penalty off the table, they may focus more on securing lengthy prison sentences and substantial fines. Evidence presentation and arguments will likely centre around ensuring the harshest non-capital punishment is applied, especially for large quantities and repeated offences.
  • Defence Strategy: Defence lawyers might have a stronger position to argue for leniency or alternative punishments, such as rehabilitation, especially in cases involving minor quantities or addiction-related offences. The removal of the death penalty might also empower defence attorneys to challenge evidence more aggressively, as the stakes, while still high, are not as dire.
  • Public Perception and Sentencing: The removal of the death penalty could influence public perception of the fairness and humanity of the justice system. Courts might face public pressure to ensure that, in the absence of the death penalty, sentences adequately reflect the severity of the offence and protect society.
  • Reliance on Previous Case Law: Previous case law, especially those that focused on the appropriateness of the death penalty in drug cases, might become less directly relevant. However, the principles of justice, fairness, and proportionality from old case law will still be applicable.
  • Human Rights and International Relations: The amendment aligns Pakistan’s narcotics law more closely with international human rights standards, which generally oppose the use of the death penalty, especially for non-violent crimes like drug trafficking. This change could improve Pakistan’s international image and relations with countries and organisations that advocate for the abolition of the death penalty.

In conclusion, the 2023 amendment represents a significant change in the legal landscape surrounding drug offenses in Pakistan. While the offences remain grave and are met with severe penalties, the removal of the death penalty might lead to more nuanced and rehabilitative approaches to dealing with drug offenders. 

Re-evaluation of the Relevance of the previous case law on Section 9 for bail applications after the 2022 and 2023 amendments 

Section 9 has, since its inception generated a lot of case law. The sections below evaluate each of these cases especially relating to 9 (b) and 9 (c) 

In terms of the relevance of each of the cases in light of the 2022 and 2023 amendments to Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, we have reviewed the previous cases as follows:

2020 YLRN 43 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs. State)

This case is relevant as it pertains to the borderline quantity of narcotics recovered. Given the amendments, the distinction between quantities under subsections 9(b) and 9(c) becomes even more important as the penalties have changed. The weight of the recovered material and how it’s weighed (with or without packaging) can alter the applicable subsection and thus, the penalty.

2020 YLRN 25 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (ASIF ISLAM vs. The STATE through POLICE STATION ANF CLIFTON)

This case is relevant due to the delay in trial proceedings and the lack of private witnesses in a busy place. Such factors might play a more significant role in bail considerations, especially now that the death penalty is off the table.

2020 YLRN 38 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (MANZI GUL vs. State)

The substantial quantity of heroin recovered and the contradiction in the FSL report are critical factors. However, the emphasis on the sheer volume might become less acute with the removal of the death penalty. Still, the quantity will determine the severity of the other possible penalties.

2020 PCrLJN 104 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (NAVEED ALAM vs. State)

As with the first case, this also deals with a borderline quantity, making it relevant. The distinction between quantities for subsections 9(b) and 9(c) will influence bail considerations.

2020 YLRN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD NADEEM vs. State)

Given the delay in the trial, this case remains relevant. The amendments do not change the fact that undue delays can be grounds for bail considerations.

2020 PCrLJN 46 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (ASMAT ALI SHAH vs. State)

The conscious knowledge of the accused about the narcotics in the vehicle is a significant point. The amendments won’t change the relevance of such considerations in bail applications.

2020 YLR 464 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (YASIR vs. State)

The improper seizure by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector and non-production of case property before court are procedural flaws that remain relevant, irrespective of the amendments.

2020 YLR 93 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (SHAHZAD alias SAJJAD vs. State)

The physical disability of the accused remains a humanitarian ground for bail consideration, regardless of the amendments to the Act.

2020 YLRN 8 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (SAIDA GUL vs. State)

As with some previous cases, the distinction between the weights for subsections 9(b) and 9(c) and the accused’s physical disability will continue to be significant factors for bail considerations.

(RAB NAWAZ vs. State): The transportation of narcotics and the physical disability of the accused, as with previous cases, remain relevant for bail considerations.

2021 PLD 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN vs. State)

This case brings up an interesting situation where two FIRs were registered at the same police station within a short span, making the allegations dubious. It appears the amendments wouldn’t change the relevance of this, as inconsistencies in FIRs and possible police malpractice remain critical considerations for bail.

2021 YLR 583 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (IMRAN ULLAH vs. State)

The case is relevant due to the recovery of a substantial amount of Charas and procedural flaws such as non-association of private witnesses and a delay in chemical examination. Additionally, the rank of the seizing officer remains a pertinent point, irrespective of the amendments.

2021 YLR 690 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN (MUHAMMAD SULTAN vs. State)

The refusal of bail here is based on previous bail applications and the absence of fresh grounds. The amendments to the Act wouldn’t significantly change the relevance of such considerations.

2021 PCrLJ 443 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (NASIR MAHMOOD vs. State)

This case revolves around procedural inconsistencies, such as a lack of private witnesses and delays in chemical examination. The distinction between weights under subsections 9(b) and 9(c) remains critical, making this case relevant post-amendments.

2021 YLRN 70 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (ZOHAIB AHMED vs. State)

The case is notable for possible police malpractice and the non-association of private witnesses. Given the overarching theme of fairness and justice, the amendments would not diminish the relevance of such considerations.

2020 YLRN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD NADEEM vs. State)

Here, the delay in the trial proceedings and the possibility of the accused serving his sentence before his appeal is decided on merits are significant considerations. The amendments don’t alter the relevance of such concerns.

2020 SCMR 2017 SUPREME-COURT (MUHAMMAD IRFAN vs. State)

This case emphasises the interception and recovery of a substantial amount of contraband. Given the changes in penalties under the amendments, the sheer volume of contraband will still play a role in bail considerations.

2020 SCMR 1859 SUPREME-COURT (ABBAS RAZA vs. State)

The time and circumstances of the recovery make this case intriguing. Selling narcotics during late, cold hours does seem suspicious. The amendments wouldn’t alter the relevance of such contextual considerations.

2020 PCrLJN 104 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (NAVEED ALAM vs. State)

As with some previous cases, the borderline quantity of narcotics recovered remains a pivotal factor. The distinction between subsections 9(b) and 9(c) and the potential concealment of facts by the police (presence of passengers) make this case relevant post-amendments.

2021 PCrLJ 443 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (NASIR MAHMOOD vs. State)

In this case, 2040 grams of Charas were recovered, with no private witnesses associated despite prior spy information. There were delays in sending the sample for chemical examination, which required explanation. All witnesses were from the police, reducing the risk of evidence tampering. This case underlines the importance of procedural flaws and potential police malpractice, which would remain relevant post-amendments.

2021 MLD 144 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (KHURSHEED BIBI vs. State)

The accused was found in possession of 2420 grams of charas. The evidence included a prompt FIR, witness statements, and the recovered contraband. The heinous nature of the offence was highlighted, and the accused was denied bail. The amendments wouldn’t significantly alter the relevance of such cases where substantial evidence is presented.

2021 YLR 583 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (IMRAN ULLAH vs. State)

This case discussed the recovery of 2000 grams of Charas. A significant point was that the report from the Chemical Examiner was not received even after two months. Also, the joint recovery memo was not admissible in evidence, and the complainant, a Head Constable, was not competent to arrest and search the accused. This case emphasises procedural inconsistencies and the importance of rank in narcotics cases.

2021 MLD 1674 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR KHAN vs. State)

The recovery involved 1170 grams of charas, exceeding the one-kilogram limit by 170 grams. This “borderline” situation could be influenced by the amendments, especially if they bring clarity or modifications to the weight distinctions.

2021 SCMR 324 SUPREME-COURT (ATIF-UR-REHMAN vs. State)

The accused didn’t directly possess narcotics, but according to the prosecution, he pointed to another truck containing narcotics. The ANF officials were already aware of this truck. The case’s relevance remains due to the discussion on the applicability of S. 15 of the Act, irrespective of the amendments.

2021 PCrLJN 25 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (KHADIM HUSSAIN vs. State)

The accused was found with 1250 grams of charas and had served over a year of a four-year-six-month sentence. The delay in appeal proceedings was significant. This case emphasises the need for timely justice, a concern not directly addressed by the amendments.

2021 SCMR 460 SUPREME-COURT (BILAL KHAN vs. State)

The accused was arrested with 1200 grams of amphetamine. The forensic report confirmed this. The case’s importance lies in the considerable quantity of lethal contraband and the discussion around S. 51 of the Act. The amendments would still consider such substantial recoveries.

See also  Top Oil Discoveries 2013 (Jan-March)

2021 PLD 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN vs. State)

Two different FIRs were registered against the accused and her husband within minutes. This case brings forward the potential for police manipulation in registering cases, a concern that remains post-amendments.

2021 MLD 1129 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (NADIR HUSSAIN vs. State)

The accused was found with 12500 grams of charas. Without the Chemical Examiner’s report, no expert opinion could be formed, and the challan was not submitted within the mandatory period. These procedural flaws remain relevant considerations.

2021 SCMR 1773 SUPREME-COURT (AIJAZ ALI RAJPAR vs. State)

The accused was found with 1920 grams of cannabis. This case emphasised the importance of witness consistency and evidence chain. The forensic report’s positive outcome and the considerable quantity of contraband were pivotal.

2018 YLRN 144 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (HASSAN SHAH vs. State)

The accused was in jail for thirty months, and his trial had not concluded. This case focuses on the importance of timely justice, a concern that persists regardless of the amendments.

2018 MLD 971 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (MUHAMMAD NABI vs. State)

The accused was found with a substantial quantity of charas. This case underscores the need for a stern approach to drug offences, especially when dealing with repeat offenders.

2018 PCrLJN 18 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Mst. NASEEM BIBI vs. State)

The accused and their family were allegedly transporting a significant quantity of narcotics. The case emphasised the gravity of drug trafficking and the role of family in such offences.

2018 MLD 1728 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (IMRAN vs. State)

The accused was found with 456 grams of charas. The recovery was of a meagre quantity, making it a potential borderline case in light of the amendments.

2018 PCrLJN 157 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MOMIN SHAH vs. State

The case pertained to the possession of narcotics and a pistol. The recovery of the contraband Charas appeared questionable due to the delay in dispatching for analysis and the lack of clarity on the entrusted police official. The recovered pistol was licensed to the accused. Given these circumstances and no prior criminal history, the accused was granted bail.

2018 YLR 1400 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Repeated Twice)

MUHAMMAD MUBEEN KHAN vs. State

This case revolved around the possession of narcotic drugs and the maintainability of a second bail application. The High Court had previously rejected the accused’s bail application on merits. The second bail application lacked new grounds and was deemed not entertainable, leading to the refusal of bail.

2018 MLD 1088 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SHOAIB vs. State

The accused was charged with possessing and trafficking narcotics. Although there was a contention regarding the type of Charas recovered, the Forensic report and the quantity of recovery linked the accused with the crime. This made the accused ineligible for bail, leading to its refusal.

2018 YLRN 199 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (Repeated Thrice)

AKHTAR MUNIR vs. State

In this case, the accused was not arrested at the scene but was nominated by his brother, the main accused. Despite other cases registered against him, there was no record of conviction, making it a subject for further inquiry. The accused was granted bail.

2018 YLRN 27 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

FIDA MOHAMMAD vs. State

The contention was the local police’s jurisdiction in chalking FIR for narcotic-related offences. The Court directed the local police to approach the Anti-Narcotics Court. However, the accused couldn’t benefit from the police’s errors, leading to the refusal of bail.

2018 PCrLJN 151 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABID ALI vs. State

The accused was charged with the possession of narcotics found in the vehicle he drove. Given the severity of the charge and the prohibition against granting bail in such cases, bail was refused.

2018 PCrLJN 18 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Mst. NASEEM BIBI vs. State

The accused were found in possession of a significant quantity of narcotics and were related to a primary suspect known for similar offences. Given the seriousness of the charges, bail was refused.

2018 YLR 993 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

KHAN ZEB vs. State

Although the accused was found on the driving seat of a vehicle with narcotics, he wasn’t shown as the owner. Given that his role was similar to two other co-accused already released on bail, the accused was granted bail.

2018 PCrLJN 75 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AFZAL AHMED vs. State

A large quantity of narcotics was recovered from the accused’s consignments. The gravity of the offence made the accused ineligible for bail, leading to its refusal.

2018 PCrLJN 837 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN (Repeated Twice)

MUHAMMAD ALAM vs. State

The accused was initially charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act but was later admitted to bail. The offence under the Anti-Money Laundering Act did not fall under the prohibitory clause of the Criminal Procedure Code, so the accused was granted bail.

2018 YLRN 122 (PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

Appellant: CHAN ZEB

Opponent: State

Ruling: The accused was granted bail because the material implicating him was based on a statement of a co-accused before the police, which is not considered evidence under Art.38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Also, nothing was recovered directly from him, and he was not previously involved in similar cases.

2018 MLD 1942 (HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR)

Appellant: RIASAT alias SATI

Opponent: The STATE

Ruling: The accused was granted bail due to the absence of private witnesses during the recovery of charas and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The recovered substance did not exceed the limit of 1500 grams, making it a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of S.9.

2020 YLR 1429 (PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

Appellant: NASIR AZIZ

Opponent: State

Ruling: Bail was granted. The heroin was recovered from the vehicle driven by a co-accused, and there was no evidence to suggest the accused had knowledge of the narcotics.

2020 YLR 93 (LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

Appellant: SHAHZAD alias SAJJAD

Opponent: State

Ruling: The accused, who was reportedly blind, was granted post-arrest bail. The circumstances of his arrest and recovery of charas called for further investigation into his guilt.

2019 SCMR 1928 (SUPREME-COURT)

Appellant: ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE

Opponent: QASIM ALI

Ruling: The High Court had granted bail referencing S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that S.51 of the Act ousted the application of provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C. The matter was remanded back to the High Court.

2019 YLRN 68 (KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Appellant: AMAR AMAN

Opponent: State

Ruling: The accused, who was arrested for having a ‘Bilty’ (Bill of Lading), was granted bail. The recovery was not made directly from him, and the case called for further inquiry.

2019 MLD 30 (KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Appellant: AYUB MASIH

Opponent: State

Ruling: The accused were denied bail. The recovery of contraband was significant, and the case was affected by the prohibition under S.51 of the Act.

2019 YLR 1043 (HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR)

Appellant: AQEEL MAROOF

Opponent: State

Ruling: Bail was granted as the quantity of charas recovered was marginal, making it a borderline case. The accused was also deemed unconnected to the guilt.

2019 PCrLJN 98 (KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Appellant: QAMAR MEHMOOD

Opponent: State

Ruling: The accused was denied bail. He was caught with a significant quantity of heroin, and there was substantial evidence linking him to the crime.

2019 SCMR 1651 (SUPREME-COURT)

Appellant: JHUSSAIN ULLAH

Opponent: State

Ruling: Bail was granted as there was nothing on record connecting the accused to the car from which the narcotics were recovered.

2019 SCMR 2027 (SUPREME-COURT)

Appellant: ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE

Opponent: Syed PARIS ALI

Ruling: The accused was not denied bail despite medical grounds not being deemed serious enough. The disease in question was “Hemorrhoids”.

2019 MLD 1929 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

Appellant: ABDUL RAHEEM

Opponent: State

Ruling: Bail was granted due to lack of independent corroboration of the recovery of narcotics.

2018 YLR 911 (KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Appellant: IMTIAZ ALI

Opponent: State

Ruling: The accused was denied bail. A significant quantity of charas was recovered from him, and the recovery fell under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

2018 YLR 2031 (KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Appellant: WAJAHAT ALI ZAIDI

Opponent: State

Ruling: Bail was denied due to the large recovery of charas and the case falling under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

2020 YLRN 8:

The accused was sitting on the front seat of a vehicle where narcotics were discovered in secret cavities. The case emphasizes the distinction between direct possession and mere presence near the narcotics. If the 2022 and 2023 amendments clarified the definitions of “conscious knowledge” and “active possession”, this case might be interpreted differently.

2020 PCrLJN 25:

Similar to the previous case, narcotics were discovered in a vehicle, but not in direct possession of the accused. The missing Forensic Science Laboratory report also plays a crucial role. Depending on the amendments, the significance of this missing report might be viewed differently.

2020 PCrLJN 46:

This case is more straightforward as the accused admitted to being in the car where the narcotics were discovered but denied knowledge. Any amendments that further define “conscious knowledge” could influence the interpretation of this case.

2020 PCrLJN 144:

Here, the recovery method and the exclusion of certain procedures due to the Control of Narcotic Substances Act are highlighted. If amendments introduced changes to these procedures or the weight given to police testimony, this case might be impacted.

2020 PCrLJ 662:

This case emphasizes the role of the complainant also acting as the investigating officer, which might be an area touched upon by the amendments.

2020 SCMR 444:

The distinction between a passenger and a driver in a vehicle containing narcotics is made, emphasizing the need to establish a connection between the two.

2020 PCrLJ 147:

This case mainly addresses procedural matters related to bail.

2022 PCrLJ 1466:

The inadmissibility of an accused’s statement to the police is underscored. If the 2022 or 2023 amendments made changes to evidence laws or the admissibility of statements, this case’s interpretation might change.

2020 MLD 723:

The association of private witnesses in recovery proceedings and joint memos are central to this case. Any amendments addressing these issues could influence the case’s interpretation.

2020 PCrLJ 184:

This case deals with the statutory delay in the context of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.

2020 YLRN 20:

The weight of the narcotics, especially when near the boundary of two sections of the Act, is crucial. If amendments adjusted the weight limits or penalties associated with them, this case could be impacted.

2020 YLRN 121:

This case emphasizes the validity of police witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses. If the 2022 or 2023 amendments made changes to the weight given to police testimony or the need for independent witnesses, the interpretation of this case might change.

2021 MLD 1674 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

This case discusses a borderline instance where the recovery of narcotics slightly exceeded the threshold limit. The court granted bail due to the marginal excess.

2022 YLRN 72 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

This case highlights the importance of producing key evidence linking the accused to the narcotics, particularly when the narcotics aren’t found in the immediate possession of the accused.

2022 MLD 520 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The case emphasises prosecutorial inefficiency and the undue delay in framing charges against the accused.

2022 PCrLJ 690 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

This case outlines the importance of associating independent witnesses and addressing delays in sending samples for examination.

2022 YLRN 88 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

The case stresses the severity of offences when narcotics are intended for international trafficking, tarnishing the country’s reputation.

2022 SCMR 840 SUPREME-COURT

This judgement emphasises the gravity of the offence when a significant amount of narcotics is concealed, reinforcing the stringent stance against such activities.

2022 PCrLJ 1466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

This case underscores the inadmissibility of an accused’s admission before the police, emphasising the importance of credible evidence.

2022 YLR 1655 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

This judgement discusses the implications of narcotic recoveries that don’t exceed the specified limit and the subsequent bail provisions.

2022 PLD 512 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

This case brings up the provisions regarding the release of individuals with unsoundness of mind.

2022 MLD 998 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

This case elaborates on the Control of Narcotic Substances Act’s core objectives and provisions, offering a comprehensive overview.

2023 MLD 942:

The court granted bail because the FIR lacked details about the chemical examination of the samples, and the accused might have been falsely implicated due to animosity. The witnesses being subordinates of the complainant could tamper with the evidence, but the trial would determine the accused’s involvement.

2023 YLRN 31:

Bail was granted because the accused was not found in possession of the narcotics, and there were discrepancies in the FIR about the witnesses and ownership of the house. The co-accused, the owner of the house, was already granted bail, making the accused’s case stronger.

2023 MLD 731:

Being an old and infirm lady with no independent witness to the incident and no risk of tampering with the evidence, the court granted bail to the accused lady.

2023 MLD 625:

Bail was denied as the accused’s involvement in trafficking narcotics couldn’t be ruled out. The recovery was not witnessed by public persons, but the High Court noted that this wasn’t necessary. Given the large recovery of narcotics, bail was not granted.

2023 YLR 1264:

The court refused bail as the chemical report confirmed the recovery of narcotics from the accused, making it difficult to determine the false implication without a full trial.

2023 PLD 11:

Bail was granted since the mandatory requirement of sending the recovered contraband for testing within three days was not complied with. The accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to this oversight.

2023 MLD 98:

The court emphasised that bail should not be granted in cases punishable with death unless the offence is solely punishable by death. However, the accused was granted bail since the punishment for the offence under S. 9(c) of the Act is not exclusively death.

2023 PCrLJ 583:

Bail was denied based on the involvement of the accused in trafficking narcotics. The recovered narcotics were confirmed by a forensic laboratory report.

2023 PCrLJ 282:

Bail was granted since the prosecution lacked crucial evidence, including the chemical analysis report. The accused’s “conscious knowledge” of the narcotics in the shipment wasn’t established.

2022 MLD 735:

Bail was denied due to the considerable amount of narcotics recovered from the accused and the positive report from the Chemical Examiner.

2022 SCMR 840:

The Supreme Court denied bail, noting the complex recovery process of a large amount of cannabis from the truck’s cavities.

2022 YLRN 64:

The court refused to cancel bail granted to the accused by the Trial Court as the reasons for granting bail were sufficient and convincing.

2022 YLR 1655 (PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT):

Bail was granted due to delay in trial conclusion, and the accused was entitled to be released on statutory ground as the quantity of recovered narcotic was less than 10 K.Gs.

2022 YLR 2392:

The court denied bail due to the significant quantity of narcotics recovered and the heinous nature of the offence.

2022 PLD 512:

The court dismissed the bail petition, stating that bail could not be entertained on medical grounds when a specific procedure is prescribed for such cases in the Cr.P.C.

2018 YLR 1436:

Bail was refused as the accused was caught red-handed, and no valid reasons were provided for his innocence.

2018 PCrLJN 94:

Bail was granted due to inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and the delay in trial conclusion.

2018 PCrLJN 85:

In this border-line case between S. 9(b) and S. 9(c) of the Act, bail was granted.

 2018 PCrLJN 100 – Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

This case revolves around the recovery of three kilograms of charas from the accused. The defense raised concerns about the lack of independent witnesses and the meagre amount of charas sent for chemical analysis. The court found ambiguities in the prosecution’s narrative, particularly concerning the recovery process. This, combined with the questionable circumstances surrounding the arrest, led to the bail being granted.

Implication: The court is likely to grant bail in cases where there are significant ambiguities and procedural inconsistencies, regardless of the quantity involved.

2018 PCrLJ 268 – PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

The accused was found with 1100 grams of heroin. The prosecution’s case was questioned based on the physical feasibility of the alleged concealment method. The court found that the weight of the heroin was likely less than 1000 grams, placing the case under S. 9(b), thus granting bail.

Implication: The exact quantity and its implications on the subsections of the Act can significantly influence bail decisions.

2018 PCrLJ 227 – KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

In this case, the accused was found in possession of three kilograms of charas. The court emphasised the stringent punishment under S. 9(c) and highlighted the positive chemical examination report. Given the amount and the clear evidence against the accused, bail was denied.

Implication: Clear evidence and large quantities can lead to a denial of bail, especially when the offense falls under S. 9(c).

 2018 YLRN 124 – LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The applicant’s locus standi was questioned in this case. The court emphasised that only a directly aggrieved party should be allowed to move for cancellation of bail. The application was dismissed based on the lack of locus standi, without delving into the merits of the case.

Implication: The locus standi of the applicant plays a significant role in bail-related hearings.

2001 YLR 3284 – KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The accused, a bus driver, was not directly linked to the narcotics found on some passengers. The lack of direct evidence against the accused led to the grant of bail.

Implication: The direct involvement and possession by the accused play a crucial role in bail decisions.

2000 PCRLJ 1346 – PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

The accused, connected with the commission of the offence due to the heroin found in his car, was denied bail. The court considered the large quantity and the accused’s previous involvements in similar cases.

Implication: Prior records and clear connections to the narcotics can lead to a denial of bail, especially with significant quantities.

2000 PCRLJ 657 (repeated) – KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The discrepancies between the recovered narcotics and the Chemical Examiner’s report raised questions about the prosecution’s case. The accused was granted bail due to these uncertainties.

Implication: Discrepancies in evidence can tilt the decision in favour of granting bail.

2000 PCRLJ 1342 – KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The accused was denied bail due to the massive amount of charas allegedly involved. The positive report from the Chemical Analyst and the seriousness of the offence led to this decision.

Implication: Large quantities and clear evidence make it challenging to obtain bail.

2000 PCRLJ 30 – LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Despite the prosecution witnesses not supporting the prosecution version, the accused remained in jail for more than two years. Considering the delay and the weak case, the accused was granted bail.

Implication: Delays in trial and weak evidence can lead to the grant of bail.

2000 PCRLJ 1317 – KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The accused, in jail for over a year without trial conclusion due to the non-availability of a Presiding Officer, was granted bail. The court considered the delay and lack of evidence indicating the accused as a significant criminal.

Implication: Prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence can lead to the grant of bail.

2000 PCRLJ 945 – PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

The case emphasised the absolute prohibition on bail for offences under S. 9(c) if the punishment involves death.

Implication: Cases falling under S. 9(c) with death as potential punishment face stringent bail considerations.

1999 YLR 1445 – KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The High Court cancelled the bail granted by the Sessions Court, considering the gravity of the offence under S. 9(c).

Implication: Higher courts may intervene if they find the lower court’s bail decisions inconsistent with the Act’s provisions.

2001 PCRLJ 1296, 2001 PCRLJ 160, 2000 PCRLJ 657, 2000 PCRLJ 747

These cases further emphasise the considerations of the quantity involved, the clarity of evidence, the position and role of the accused, and other circumstantial evidence in determining bail.

2000 PCRLJ 740 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The accused established a false trading company to export hashish. Given the severity of the offence and potential punishment, bail was denied.

2000 MLD 144 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The accused had a significant amount of narcotics recovered from him and a prior drug trafficking case. As the narcotics recovery wasn’t denied, bail was denied.

2000 PCRLJ 1346 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Here, heroin was recovered from a car driven by the accused. Despite a co-accused’s confession, prior involvement in similar cases resulted in bail being denied.

2003 PCRLJ 562 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

This case emphasises the rule of consistency, where the accused were granted bail due to circumstances similar to their co-accused who had already been granted bail.

2003 PCRLJ 1776 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

A significant amount of narcotics was recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused. The trial had already commenced, and the accused was apprehended alone with the narcotics. Hence, bail was denied.

2003 PCRLJ 540 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The raiding party found Charas on the accused and Bhang in his car. The absence of independent witnesses and potential bias led to the accused being granted bail.

2002 YLR 1773 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

This case involves the accused aiding in drug trafficking/export. The prosecution’s evidence connected the accused to the crime, leading to the denial of bail.

2002 YLR 191 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The accused was named in the F.I.R., and the Chemical Examiner’s report was positive. Given that the case fell within the prohibitory clause, bail was denied.

2002 YLR 3598 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The accused was caught with Charas, and the police were convinced of his guilt. The prohibitory nature of the offence and the absence of mala fide intent led to the denial of bail.

2002 YLR 613 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Bail was sought on the grounds that other co-accused were released, but the bar on grant of bail under the Act led to the application’s dismissal.

2002 YLR 941 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The accused, being a cab driver, was found innocent as no recovery was made from him. The police deemed him innocent, and he was granted bail.

2006 PLD 300 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ QURESHI vs. State): This case illustrates that the quantity of the narcotic substance recovered is the determining factor for the punishment, not the percentage as indicated by the Chemical Examiner. The distinction is made for liquid preparations per S.3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The key takeaway is that the percentage in the Chemical Examiner’s report is not relevant for non-liquid contraband. Seven kilograms of Charas and two kilograms of Heroin placed the case under S.9(c), with no apparent bias against the accused by the raiding party.

2005 PCRLJ 603 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD IJAZ vs. State): The accused was granted bail because the narcotics were not recovered from his house but from a co-accused’s house. The connection between the accused and co-accused as agents hadn’t been proven at this stage.

2005 PCRLJ 248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (LUQMAN RAJI ADEWUNMI vs. State): At the bail stage, the court refused to delve deeply into the evidence, especially concerning the identity of the accused. The lack of private witness association was not deemed sufficient for bail. The delay in challan submission can be a ground for bail, but it was not in this case due to the presence of strong evidence.

2005 YLR 1411 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (State vs. MALIK AMIR): The competence of the petitioner to maintain a petition for bail cancellation was upheld. This case also highlights that confession statements of co-accused leading to further recovery are admissible under Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Bail was cancelled due to the weight of evidence against the accused and potential tampering of evidence.

2006 PCRLJ 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (Rana WARIS ALI vs. State): The court declined bail to the accused, emphasizing that mere claims of political rivalry without concrete evidence or the distinction between S.9(b) and S.9(c) in terms of the quantity of narcotics are insufficient grounds for bail. The act’s S.51 also denies bail as a right in such cases.

2006 YLR 3095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs. State): Even though the accused could face a death sentence under S.9(c), bail was granted due to the absence of evidence directly linking the accused to the narcotics sale. The application of S.561-A, Cr. P. C., was invoked in this case.

2006 MLD 704 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (Mian MUHAMMAD IDREES vs. State): The court did not grant bail based on the medical condition of the accused. Although the accused’s ailment was severe, the medical reports did not suggest a life-threatening situation in jail.

2006 PCRLJ 1535 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (SAJJAD alias SHADA vs. State): Bail was granted to the accused after the Investigating Officer acknowledged that the real perpetrator had planted the Charas on the accused.

2006 PCRLJ 1595 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs. State): The court ruled that the recovered material being “Bhang” (which isn’t defined as hemp in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997) shifted the case towards further inquiry. The prolonged detention without significant trial progress was also a factor in the bail grant.

2007 YLR 2968 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (MAHBOOB ALI vs. State):

The accused was arrested with charas weighing 1010 grams. Since the quantity marginally exceeded the 1000 grams limit, it became a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of S.9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. This necessitated further inquiry to determine the guilt of the accused. The delay in trial proceedings and the case requiring further inquiry meant the accused was entitled to bail.

2007 YLR 3130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (OBIAQWU EZEKEKE vs. State):

Nothing was recovered directly from the accused. Implication was based on a co-accused’s statement. No prosecution witness made statements against the accused. Given these circumstances, the case required further inquiry, and the accused were granted bail.

2007 YLR 836 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (NISAR KHAN vs. State):

The accused had no previous convictions or bookings for similar offences. As bail was granted in another similar case and there were no exceptional grounds against this accused, he was granted bail.

2007 PCRLJ 1615 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Mst. SHAMIM alias SHAMI vs. State):

Charas weighing 2 Kilograms was found on the accused. The court found no evidence of any enmity between the accused or her tribe and the police. The accused’s bail application was dismissed.

2007 YLR 3105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (HANOOK BABAR MASIH vs. State):

The accused couldn’t establish that he was involved in the case due to enmity. Given the weight of the recovered narcotic, his case was covered by S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which is punishable severely. The bail application was dismissed.

2007 PCRLJ 1113 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT (SAHIB ZADA JEHANGIR vs. State):

Points raised by the counsel about recovery and quantity required thorough scrutiny by the Trial Court. The bail was allowed as the case was deemed fit for further inquiry.

2007 MLD 1092 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (NADEEM vs. State):

To establish the exact nature of the narcotic substance, a sample must be obtained from each packet. The prosecution should be strict in establishing the quantum of recovery. Accused is entitled to bail until the prosecution can prove the entire quantity involved was narcotic.

2007 PCRLJ 139 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Sayed GHULAM MUSTAFA vs. State):

The co-accused was found with a shopping bag but there was no evidence to connect him with the narcotics recovered from the main accused. The proceedings against the co-accused were quashed.

2007 MLD 1852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs. State):

Despite the delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner, the court ruled that the mere delay did not make the prosecution’s case doubtful. The accused’s bail application was dismissed.

2007 YLR 1973 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (NOOR MUHAMMAD vs. State):

The exact weight of the Charas recovered was not clearly determined, and the accused made out a case for the grant of bail.

2007 YLR 3034 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (VICTOR MASIH alias CHHOOTO vs. State):

One of the accused was apprehended at the spot while the other was arrested later. The accused failed to prove any enmity with the police. The Trial Court had already taken a lenient view, so the conviction and sentence were maintained.

2007 YLR 836 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: The un-controverted fact that the accused was neither a previous convict nor had been booked for similar offences in the past played a significant role in the decision. If bail has been granted in other similar cases, there must be exceptional grounds for a different decision. In this instance, the accused was granted bail. [Citation: 2007 YLR 836]

2007 PCRLJ 1615 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The sheer quantity of narcotics (2 kilograms of Charas) and the absence of material showing police enmity or malice towards the accused made it difficult to grant bail. Furthermore, the mere allegation of police extortion wasn’t supported by strong evidence. Thus, bail was refused. [Citation: 2007 PCRLJ 1615]

2007 YLR 3105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Accused’s claim of being involved mala fide due to enmity with police was not established. The significant quantity of narcotics recovered and the restrictions imposed by sections of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act made it difficult to grant bail. The bail petition was dismissed. [Citation: 2007 YLR 3105]

2007 PCRLJ 1113 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: The arguments raised by the counsel concerning recovery and quantity of narcotics required thorough scrutiny by the Trial Court. In the presence of the available record, the case became fit for further inquiry, and bail was allowed. [Citation: 2007 PCRLJ 1113]

2007 MLD 1092 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The importance of establishing the entire quantity of the specific substance for which the accused was charged was highlighted. Until the prosecution can prove that the entire quantity was narcotic, the accused was entitled to bail. [Citation: 2007 MLD 1092]

2007 PCRLJ 139 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The proceedings against the co-accused were quashed due to the lack of evidence connecting him to the Charas recovered from the main accused. [Citation: 2007 PCRLJ 139]

2007 MLD 623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The co-accused had been admitted to bail, and the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation found the accused to be falsely implicated. This made the case one of further inquiry, and the accused was granted bail. [Citation: 2007 MLD 623]

2007 MLD 1852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The Special Prosecutor Anti-Narcotic Force submitted that after thorough probing, the accused was found to be innocent. The case against the accused required further inquiry and he was allowed bail. [Citation: 2007 MLD 1852]

2007 MLD 240 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: There was a lack of clarity regarding the exact weight of Charas recovered from the accused. As the final finding was yet to be recorded by the Trial Court, the accused was granted bail. [Citation: 2007 MLD 240]

2007 YLR 3034 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The police officials, despite being from the department, were considered as good witnesses as any from the public. The accused was not granted a lenient view, and their conviction and sentence were maintained. [Citation: 2007 YLR 3034]

2008 PCrLJ 1449 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: The case was a borderline one, and it was yet to be determined whether it fell under S.9(b) or 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. Due to the lack of independent witnesses and the nature of the case, it was determined to be a case for further inquiry, and the accused was granted bail. [Citation: 2008 PCrLJ 1449]

2008 YLR 2248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The accused, a female, claimed her detention was illegal and that affidavits from several persons attested to this fact.

The Court found that these affidavits could not be considered at the bail stage. There was no legal document to substantiate her illegal detention claim.

The Court observed that Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable to recoveries under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.

The bail was declined because the accused was arrested with a significant amount of narcotics.

2008 PCrLJ 1437 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

It remained to be seen whether the accused’s case fell under Section 9(b) or 9(c).

No independent witness was recorded regarding the recovery.

The forensic report was delayed, and no buyer was mentioned or examined.

The accused was granted bail due to the circumstances warranting further inquiry.

2008 PCrLJ 691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The accused was differentiated from a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

There was a strong belief that the accused was linked to the alleged crime.

Due to the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, the accused was denied bail.

2008 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (First Mention)

The accused argued for bail based on consistency since a co-accused was granted bail.

The Court found the roles of the accused and co-accused to be distinct.

No enmity was proven with the Excise Staff.

Bail was declined.

2008 YLR 2553 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Only a few rods out of 136 were tested for Charas.

The accused had been in custody for a year without trial.

It was uncertain whether the accused knew about the Charas hidden in the car.

The case needed further inquiry, and the accused was granted bail.

2008 PCrLJ 663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The case against the accused seemed to result from mala fides.

The recovery memo lacked an F.I.R. number.

The Court found that despite the bar in Section 51, bail could be granted.

The accused was presumed innocent and was granted bail.

2008 YLR 2815 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

There was a delay in sending the Charas for chemical analysis.

The case was considered for further inquiry, and the accused was granted bail.

2007 PCRLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (First Mention)

The Court noted that Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act wasn’t an absolute bar to granting bail.

2007 PCRLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE (Second Mention)

The Trial Court’s conclusions were based on sound reasons.

No direct evidence linked the accused to the crime.

The bail granted by the Trial Court was not cancelled.

2008 PCrLJ 1342 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The accused was not apprehended at the scene.

The sentence of the accused was suspended, and he was released on bail.

2008 PCrLJ 750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The alleged material recovered was not hemp.

The accused was in jail for a long time.

He was granted bail due to the circumstances.

2008 PLD 522 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The accused had medical issues.

The Court granted bail based solely on medical grounds.

2008 PCrLJ 354 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

The recovery of Charas was not from the accused’s immediate possession.

There was no clarity about who was driving the vehicle.

The accused was granted bail due to the circumstances.

2008 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Second Mention)

The accused’s role was distinct from a co-accused who had been granted bail.

No enmity was shown with the Excise Staff.

The accused was denied bail.

2008 YLR 2553 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Second Mention)

Only a few rods out of 136 were tested for Charas.

The accused had been in custody for a year without trial.

The case needed further inquiry, and the accused was granted bail.

2008 MLD 802 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Nothing was recovered directly from the accused.

The accused led the police to the co-accused.

The accused was granted bail due to the circumstances.

2008 YLR 385 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

The alleged Charas was not recovered directly from the accused.

The accused had been in jail for 11 months without a challan being submitted.

The accused was granted bail due to the circumstances.

2008 PCrLJ 964 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

An accused’s co-accused being released on bail, where the contraband quantity doesn’t breach S.497 Cr.P.C., may favour the accused’s bail. If the investigation is complete and the accused’s continued detention doesn’t aid the prosecution, bail can be granted.

2008 YLR 2248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Even with affidavits supporting illegal detention claims, if there’s no legal document substantiating the illegal custody and no F.I.R. or complaint concerning the detention, the bail can be denied. Moreover, S.103, Cr.P.C. isn’t applicable for narcotic recoveries.

2008 PCrLJ 1339 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Bail isn’t an inherent right if the offence doesn’t fall under S.497, Cr.P.C. If no injustice or illegality is evident in the bail grant, a petition for its cancellation can be dismissed.

2008 PCrLJ 1665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

For an accused absconding for years, without commenting on the merits, if a prima facie case is established against the accused, bail can be denied.

2008 MLD 802 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

If nothing was recovered directly from the accused and the association with the offence is questionable, the case may require further inquiry and bail can be granted.

2008 PCrLJ 691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

When an accused is directly implicated in an F.I.R. and the offence falls under S.497 Cr.P.C.’s prohibitory clause, bail can be denied.

2008 PCrLJ 1342 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

If an accused wasn’t caught at the crime scene and evidence against him warrants reconsideration, the sentence can be suspended and bail granted.

2008 PCrLJ 354 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

For recoveries not directly linked to the accused and unsupported by independent evidence, the accused’s case may require further inquiry, leading to bail.

2008 MLD 1121 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Serious health conditions necessitating specialised treatment not available in jail can warrant bail.

2008 YLR 351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

If sample testing wasn’t comprehensively done, the remaining untested substance might not be deemed narcotic. Complainants investigating their own cases can lead to doubts, favouring the accused’s bail.

2008 YLR 2204 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Complainants can investigate cases involving recoveries. Affidavits, without other legal documents, may not prove illegal custody.

2008 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The rule of consistency in bail might not always apply. Sample testing issues may not always aid the accused at the bail stage.

2008 PLD 522 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Medical conditions can be a valid ground for bail.

2008 PCrLJ 751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Breaches in raid protocols don’t necessarily invalidate the case. C.I.A. personnel can enforce the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. An accused’s extensive criminal record, especially drug-related, can hinder bail.

2008 YLR 2565 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted based on further inquiry. The accused was distinguishable from absconding co-accused. No incriminating evidence was directly linked to the accused, and there was no clear evidence of firing on Anti-Narcotic Force.

2008 MLD 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Bail was granted due to prolonged detention without trial progress. The accused’s right to a speedy trial was emphasised.

2008 PCrLJ 750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Bail was granted due to further inquiry about the nature of the substance recovered. The material was “Shang”, and its classification was contested.

2008 PCrLJ 354 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: Bail was granted due to inconsistencies in the FIR and the absence of independent evidence. The case required further inquiry.

2008 PCrLJ 1449 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: Bail was granted based on further inquiry. The classification of the case under Section 9(b) or 9(c) was yet to be determined, and there was no independent witness.

2009 YLR 189 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: Bail was granted due to discrepancies in the recovery process and considering the maximum sentence likely to be awarded.

2009 MLD 1187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was refused based on previously unpressed grounds and support from the Seizing Officer.

2009 PCrLJ 1089 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted due to discrepancies in the FIR and the granting of bail to a co-accused.

2009 YLR 598 ISLAMABAD: Bail was refused due to strong evidence linking the accused to the narcotics found in shoes and potential penalties.

2009 YLR 899 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was refused due to the recovery of a significant amount of narcotics and the gravity of the offence.

2009 MLD 115 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was refused due to the specific role attributed to the accused and the significant quantity of heroin recovered.

2009 PCrLJ 1427 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Bail was refused due to the accused’s criminal record, involvement in multiple narcotic cases, and the prohibitory clause of Section 497.

2009 PCrLJ 820 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was refused due to the nature of the recovery and the accused’s attempt to travel abroad with narcotics.

2009 YLR 1987 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted due to procedural irregularities in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner.

2009 PCrLJ 695 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted to a woman with a suckling child, considering her situation.

2009 YLR 135 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted due to further inquiry required and the borderline nature of the case under Section 9(b) or 9(c).

2009 PCrLJ 1340 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted due to the vagueness in the FIR and procedural issues in sending samples for testing.

2009 PCrLJ 315 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted based on the vagueness of the FIR and other procedural irregularities.

ALI REHMAN vs State (2011 PCrLJ 1182 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

See also  Lis Pendens in Pakistan: An Insight into Its Meaning and Application

In situations where a co-accused states that the accused had no knowledge about the narcotics, such statements, even if not admissible, may sway the opinion towards the innocence of the accused. It was argued that the accused might not be aware of the narcotics in a passenger’s luggage. Until the prosecution can establish a connection between the accused and the crime, bail might be justified.

UMAR DARAZ vs State (2011 PCrLJ 559 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

If narcotics are not recovered directly from the accused, and their knowledge about the narcotics is debatable, the case might require further inquiry. Mere association or presence, like being the driver of the vehicle, might not be sufficient to deny bail.

HAMID ALLAUDDIN vs State (2011 MLD 923 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Medical grounds alone may not be sufficient for bail, especially when significant quantities of narcotics are involved, and the ailment is not life-threatening or untreatable in jail.

SAQIB KHAN vs State (2011 YLR 1143 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

Being caught red-handed with a significant quantity of prohibited substances and lacking a plausible explanation can lead to a bail refusal. It is emphasized that a quick conclusion of the trial is required in such cases.

MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs State (2011 YLR 569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

If the quantity of narcotics is slightly over the upper limit of a category and the accused has no prior convictions, bail might be considered.

MUHAMMAD AMIN vs State (2011 SCMR 1736 SUPREME-COURT)

Issues in the recovery process, like the absence of the accused during recovery and uncertainty in arrest details, can raise doubts and make the case eligible for reappraisal.

SAFIR KHAN vs State (2011 MLD 365 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

When the recovery is relatively small and the punishment varies depending on the circumstances, bail might be granted unless there are special circumstances, like a history of offences.

NASIR KHAN AFRIDI vs State (2011 YLR 2316 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Issues in the recovery process, like the absence of private witnesses despite the availability of information, and borderline cases regarding the quantity of narcotics, can be grounds for further inquiry and bail.

THE STATE vs QAISAR HAFEEZ (2011 SCMR 1438 SUPREME-COURT)

If the High Court has found a case requiring further inquiry and the accused has not abused the bail concession, then the bail might not be cancelled on technical grounds.

MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs State (2011 YLR 2259 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Protective bail can be granted when there’s a genuine fear of arrest, especially if the accused is willing to surrender and face trial.

NAWAB KHAN vs State (2011 YLR 745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

If the narcotics case is slightly over the upper limit and the accused has no prior convictions, bail might be justified.

NOOR REHMAN vs State (2011 YLR 172 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

A positive chemical report and prior offences can be grounds for bail refusal. The involvement of the accused in heinous crimes can lead to the dismissal of bail applications.

GUL ANWAR vs State (2012 MLD 1521 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

Absence of evidence to prove the conscious knowledge of the accused regarding narcotics can sway the decision towards bail. If the accused’s role was merely facilitating and there’s no concrete evidence of involvement, bail can be considered.

SHAH MEHMOOD vs State (2012 YLR 1403 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Borderline cases, in terms of quantity, might require further inquiry. The exact quantity and its relation to legal limits can influence bail decisions.

LIAQAT vs State (2012 YLR 1138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Past offences can weigh heavily against granting bail. In cases where the accused is a repeated offender, bail might be declined.

ABDUL QUDOOS vs State (2012 YLR 2387 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

Ambiguous statements and a lack of concrete evidence against the accused might make the case fit for further inquiry. If the prosecution fails to provide solid evidence connecting the accused to the crime, bail can be granted.

SALEH alias SALOO vs State (2012 PCrLJ 595 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is not a barrier to granting bail in appropriate cases. Courts can grant bail even when there’s an embargo in Section 51 of the Act.

NOOR REHMAN vs State (2011 YLR 172 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

The accused were caught with a significant quantity of heroin and charas. There was a positive chemical report, and no case of further inquiry was made out. Given their involvement in a grave crime, they were denied bail.

NAWAB KHAN vs State (2011 YLR 745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

The case against the accused was marginally over the upper limit set in Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Since he had no prior convictions and was no longer needed by the police for further investigation, he was granted bail.

ASAD ULLAH vs State (2011 YLR 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

The accused, sentenced to death and fined, sought suspension of the sentence. However, the grounds were related to a deeper appreciation of evidence, which wasn’t feasible at that stage. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

THE STATE through Director-General, ANF vs SAID AHMED (2011 SCMR 908 SUPREME-COURT)

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was appropriate and in line with established principles. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

ASGHAR vs State (2011 MLD 1890 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Though private persons aren’t mandated to witness the recovery of narcotics, the location and timing of the recovery are crucial to prevent false implications, given the general conduct of the police.

MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs State (2012 YLR 553 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Due to inconsistencies in the recovery memo and a lack of public witnesses, the case was seen as one of further inquiry. The accused was granted bail.

MUHAMMAD RIZWAN vs State (2012 PCrLJ 1449 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

The accused, with a history of multiple criminal cases and convictions, was denied bail even though the current narcotics case was borderline. The previous involvement in crimes played a significant role in the decision.

BILAL vs State (2012 YLR 2617 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

The police, acting on spy information, recovered illegal weapons and narcotics. The failure to obtain a search warrant despite prior information and the absence of forensic reports made the case fit for further inquiry, leading to the granting of bail.

MUHAMMAD AZAM vs State (2012 YLR 1365 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

The accused was found in possession of narcotics slightly above the limit. Given the circumstances of the recovery and its borderline nature, bail was granted.

MUHAMMAD NAZEER vs State (2012 YLR 2797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

The evidence provided by police officials is as valuable as that of a private individual unless there’s a known enmity with the police.

ABDUL WASAY vs State (2012 PLD 383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

The possession of Ephedrine, a controlled substance, without a licence or lawful permission is a violation, and the innocence of the accused can only be determined after a trial. Bail was denied.

PANDHI KHAN vs State (2012 YLR 1251 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

Given the police’s reputation and the lack of private witnesses, the evidence of police officials was considered equal to other witnesses. The accused’s bail application was denied.

MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs State (2012 MLD 220 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

The case required further inquiry due to doubts about the exact narcotic substance in the recovery and the percentage of narcotic content. A borderline case was made out, and bail was granted.

ALLAH DINO UMRANI vs State (2012 YLR 2901 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

The recovered narcotic was borderline between Section 9(b) and 9(c). The accused was granted bail as there was no evidence suggesting he was involved in buying or selling the narcotic.

FAISAL HAYAT alias HAYATULLAH vs State (2012 MLD 348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH)

The accused’s contention of being falsely implicated due to malice was rejected. His innocence could only be determined after trial. The bail application was dismissed.

SHARIFA BIBI vs State (2012 YLR 1673 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

The female accused was found in a vehicle but had no direct connection to the narcotics. Her case was distinguishable from the co-accused, and she was granted bail.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM-UL-HAQ vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL (2012 YLR 85 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

The petitioner’s earlier proven innocence and acquittal made it clear that the recovered narcotics belonged to the respondents. The order granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents was cancelled.

2012 PCrLJ 1877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Ephedrine was classified as a controlled chemical/narcotic substance.

Statements of approvers, if they fulfil codal formalities, would have evidentiary value.

Pre-arrest bail can be granted if the arrest has ulterior motives such as humiliation or unjustified harassment by a prosecuting agency.

The purpose of effective investigation may be compromised by releasing the accused.

2012 YLR 1206 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

A deeper appreciation of record isn’t permissible at the bail stage.

The prosecution failed to explain a delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R.

Case against the accused required further inquiry as per S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

2012 YLR 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Detailed and precise tip-off in the F.I.R. might not be considered as admissible evidence.

Accusations against the police in a previous F.I.R. made by a relative could indicate possible mala fide intention.

2012 YLR 2797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (1st mention)

Police enmity and political reasons for implication weren’t proved.

S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the need to associate private persons in the recovery proceedings.

2012 YLR 2797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (2nd mention)

The evidence of police officials was as good as that of a private person unless there existed enmity with the police.

2012 PCrLJ 595 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Accused can be granted bail if no reasonable grounds exist for believing the accused is guilty, especially when the connection with the contraband material isn’t backed by cogent evidence.

2012 YLR 1403 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Weight of the narcotic and delay in sending samples for analysis are factors to be considered at the bail stage.

2012 PCrLJ 235 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Direct evidence linking the accused to the crime and the presence or absence of import documents are crucial in determining bail.

2012 PCrLJ 869 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Welfare of a minor is to be considered, especially if the accused is the mother and the child is confined with her in prison.

2012 YLR 1051 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

The connection between the accused and the contraband, the history of the accused, and the length of detention are factors in bail considerations.

2012 MLD 1542 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Past criminal history of the accused is a factor.

2012 MLD 1711 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mala fide has to be pleaded with particularity.

2012 MLD 1503 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Duration of detention and the progress of the trial are considered in bail applications.

2012 PCrLJ 1483 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Personal enmity between the complainant/police officer and the accused can be a factor. The length of detention and the stage of trial are also relevant.

2012 MLD 1711 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The case centred on the need for specific pleadings when alleging mala fide in a bail petition. For mala fide to be validly alleged, it is imperative that all relevant details be furnished in the petition and subsequently elaborated upon by the accused’s counsel. The court underscored the necessity of pleading mala fide with precision and specificity.

2012 MLD 992 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: This pertained to the refusal of bail in a case involving narcotics possession. The accused and his brother, who was the vehicle’s driver, were allegedly in possession of one maund of narcotics. With the co-accused absconding, the court deemed it plausible that the accused had conscious knowledge of the narcotics in the vehicle. Given the positive forensic report and completed investigation, the court found a prima facie case against the accused, thus denying the bail.

2012 YLR 2797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: In this case, the reliability of police officials’ testimonies in narcotics cases was discussed. The court affirmed that such testimonies are as credible as those from private individuals, barring any established enmity with the police.

2012 YLR 1237 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Here, the bail was granted based on further inquiry. The accused, a customs official, was allegedly involved in smuggling narcotics through an airport in conspiracy with a co-accused passenger. However, certain discrepancies, including the accused’s name not being initially mentioned and a lack of evidence linking the two accused, led the court to believe there might be false implication, necessitating further investigation.

2012 PCrLJ 595 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: This case established that despite Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which presents an embargo, courts still retain the authority to grant bail in certain cases.

2012 PCrLJ 1901 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: This discussed the relevance of the likely sentence in considering bail. In this instance, the accused possessed four kilograms of charas. The court argued that the bail decision should consider the probable sentence based on case specifics rather than the statute’s maximum provision.

2012 PLD 383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: This case revolved around the possession of Ephedrine, a controlled substance. The accused’s contention of being trapped by a pharmaceutical company owner lacked evidence. Given the significant quantity of Ephedrine seized without a valid licence, the court denied bail.

2012 MLD 1032 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The accused was allegedly caught with 1025 grams of charas. However, there were doubts due to the absence of private witnesses during the arrest and the small sample sent for examination. These factors made the prosecution’s case appear questionable, leading to the grant of bail.

2012 MLD 348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: The accused was allegedly involved in selling heroin at an unusual time, with no private witnesses present. The accused’s counsel failed to provide evidence supporting claims of mala fide intentions, leading to the refusal of bail.

2012 YLR 1138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Chemical report in the positive.

Violation of S.103, Cr.P.C is not tenable in narcotics cases.

Quantity of narcotic sent for chemical analysis is significant.

Previous cases against the accused can influence bail decisions.

2013 PCrLJ 394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

Ephedrine quota misuse allegations.

No evidence available connecting the accused with the commission of an offence.

At best, a potential violation of S.16 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which is bailable.

The case was seen as requiring further inquiry.

2013 YLR 1241 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Discrepancies in the narcotic weight sent for examination and the narcotic weight received by the chemical examiner.

The case lies on the border between S. 9(b) and 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

False implication of the accused can’t be ruled out.

2013 YLR 827 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

No evidence of the accused’s conscious knowledge regarding the presence of narcotics in a vehicle.

Consistency rule applies, especially if co-accused are granted bail.

2013 YLR 786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Mixing samples from different pouches can create doubt.

No association of private witnesses, despite a daylight occurrence.

The case is a border-line case between S. 9(b) and 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2013 PLD 32 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Issues arise when an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector carries out search, seizure, arrest, and investigation proceedings.

2013 SCMR 1538 SUPREME-COURT:

Narcotics contained in different packets mixed together before being sent for chemical analysis.

The prosecution can request to send the entire narcotics for chemical analysis during trial.

2013 YLR 1687 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The sole evidence against the accused was the confessional statement of a co-accused made before the Investigating Officer.

Such confessional statements are not admissible under certain articles of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

2013 YLR 53 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

Complainant (police) used a decoy witness strategy.

Accused’s age and health can be a factor in bail decisions.

2013 YLR 786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (Repeated):

Discrepancies in the mixing of samples and the non-association of private witnesses can favour the accused.

2013 PCrLJ 1160 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The mere presence of the accused in the driving seat doesn’t prima facie establish his involvement or conscious knowledge regarding the presence of narcotics.

If co-accused have already been granted bail, consistency in the decision-making process may favour the release of the accused on bail.

2013 YLR 547 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

The history of altercations or disputes with the police can be a factor. If the police have a grudge against the accused or their family, it calls for further inquiry into the case.

Lack of a previous criminal record and proximity to the upper or lower limit prescribed for the narcotic possession can influence the bail decision.

2013 PLD 32 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

If a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector conducts a search, seizure, arrest, and investigation, it violates the law under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. This makes the case one of further inquiry, which can lead to the accused being released on bail.

2013 YLR 1840 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

For bail in narcotic offences, the quantity of the contraband and the expected punishment at the trial’s conclusion are considered. If the maximum punishment is unlikely due to the quantity recovered, bail might be granted, especially if the accused has no previous convictions and is no longer required for further investigations.

2013 MLD 1860 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Using vulnerable groups (like pregnant women or juveniles) for smuggling narcotics won’t automatically guarantee bail. The court highlighted the new tactics of the narcotic mafia in employing these groups to gain court concessions, and such conduct is seen as taking liberty with the law.

2013 YLR 547 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

A grudge or vendetta by police officials against the accused, especially if it’s well-documented, can lead to further inquiry into the accused’s case for bail. The absence of a previous criminal record and a narcotic quantity just exceeding the upper limit can also be factors in favour of bail.

2013 MLD 1183 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

In cases where the accused might have misused their authority but the violations can only be confirmed after evidence at the trial stage, bail may be granted, especially if the present charges are bailable offences.

2013 YLR 1502 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

A significant amount of narcotics that’s unlikely to be planted on the accused, coupled with positive chemical analysis, can lead to bail being refused, especially for severe offences that could result in life imprisonment or death.

2013 MLD 1822 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Recovery of narcotics from direct possession, positive forensic reports, consistent witness testimonies, and no evidence of police malice can lead to bail refusal. However, first-time offenders, especially of advanced age, might still be granted probation for good conduct.

2013 SCMR 1538 SUPREME-COURT:

The court can’t presume the prosecution’s evidence before the trial. If there’s a contention about the quantity sent for chemical analysis, the prosecution can still send the entire alleged recovered narcotics for re-analysis.

2013 YLR 2560 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Mere possession without evidence of manufacturing or trafficking, especially if not supported by local witnesses, might not be strong enough grounds for denying bail. However, a large quantity of narcotics, and the lack of deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage, can result in bail refusal.

2013 YLR 1390 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

If the accused was not directly in possession of the narcotics, and no evidence connects them to the actual possessor, they may be granted bail.

2014 GBLR 194 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT:

Accused’s possession of drugs was based on information provided by another accused from a different FIR. As the recovery happened in broad daylight and a prima facie case was evident against the accused, bail was declined.

2014 MLD 1323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The accused was arrested in a public place, but no private witnesses were associated. Doubt existed regarding the actual arrest date and the manner of weighing the narcotic was unclear. Due to these ambiguities, the case required further inquiry, leading to the grant of bail to the accused.

2014 PCrLJ 1289 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Narcotics were hidden in a vehicle, with a significant quantity recovered. The accused was the driver at the time, and the prosecution’s case was strongly supported by police testimonies and a positive forensic report. Given the severity of the offence and the associated capital punishment, the accused’s bail petition was dismissed.

2014 YLR 37 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

The accused were specifically named in the FIR, with a significant quantity of narcotics attributed to them. They faced severe penalties under the Act, and no authentic documentation was provided to prove the accused’s juvenile status. Hence, bail was denied.

2014 YLR 188 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Despite the police having spy information, private witnesses were not associated with the case. The punishment for the offence did not fall under the prohibitive clause. All witnesses were police officials, which meant no likelihood of tampering with evidence. The case was deemed as requiring further inquiry, so the accused was granted bail.

2014 MLD 777 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Based on spy information, the police raided the accused’s house and allegedly found illegal weapons and narcotics. However, the police didn’t obtain search warrants, and no private witnesses were associated. The case required further inquiry, leading to the accused being granted bail.

2018 YLR 2253 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

A significant quantity of narcotics was recovered from a TV set allegedly owned by the accused. Whether the accused had knowledge of the narcotics would be determined at trial. The accused was a lady with a young child, and there was no need for prolonged jail time. Bail was granted.

2014 YLR 188 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

This case appears to be a duplicate of the fifth case mentioned above. The takeaways remain the same.

2014 PCrLJ 494 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Contrabands were recovered from secret cavities in a car. There was no evidence connecting the accused to the ownership or possession of the contraband or the car. The accused, deemed a juvenile, had no previous criminal record. Given the circumstances, a lenient view was taken, and bail was granted.

2014 YLR 892 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The accused was merely a passenger in a vehicle where narcotics were found. Nothing was recovered from his immediate possession, and there was no evidence suggesting he had knowledge of the narcotics in the vehicle. Moreover, he had no prior convictions or involvements in similar cases. He was granted bail.

2014 PCrLJ 427 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The case was a borderline situation between Sections 9(b) and 9(c) of the Act. The court held that the accused could benefit from such ambiguity even at the bail stage.

2014 PCrLJ 1205 ISLAMABAD:

Narcotics were packed in containers, but the samples were taken without specifying the quantity from each container. There was a lapse in obtaining the Chemical Examiner’s report. The case was deemed to require further inquiry, and bail was granted.

2014 MLD 1323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The accused’s arrest from a public place was questioned due to the non-association of private witnesses, uncertainty about the arrest date, and ambiguity in the narcotics weighing method. Given these concerns, further inquiry was deemed necessary, leading to the granting of bail.

2014 YLR 37 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

The accused were specifically named in the FIR, with a considerable quantity of narcotics attributed to them. They faced severe penalties under the Act, but no authentic evidence was presented to confirm the juvenile status of the accused. Bail was denied.

2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) police recovered narcotics from the accused. The accused argued that the CIA police weren’t authorised to recover narcotics. The court held that deeper appreciation of evidence wasn’t permissible at the bail stage, and bail was refused.

2014 YLR 1537 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

The accused, a female, was implicated after a separate FIR was lodged against her husband for the same occurrence. Doubt regarding her culpability, combined with the fact that she had no previous criminal record, led to the confirmation of her ad-interim pre-arrest bail.

2014 YLR 879 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The accused’s bail was granted on medical grounds due to heart problems. Medical documents confirmed his condition, and the principle “all presumptions are in favour of life, liberty and innocence” was invoked. The bail wasn’t cancelled as strong reasons for its revocation weren’t presented.

2015 MLD 499 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

The accused, being the truck driver, was deemed to have conscious knowledge of the narcotics. No evidence was presented to show enmity between the accused and the Anti-Narcotic Force. Failure to associate private witnesses wasn’t considered fatal due to the Act’s provisions. Bail was denied.

2015 SCMR 1077 SUPREME-COURT:

Four kilograms of Charas was recovered from the accused. The court emphasised that the heinous nature of narcotics offences means they are considered offences against society. The accused wasn’t entitled to bail merely based on the quantity of the narcotic substance. Bail was declined.

2014 YLR 646 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

An unexplained delay of 24 days occurred before lodging the FIR against the accused. The prosecution had conflicting stances on the quantity of narcotics recovered. The accused was granted bail due to these ambiguities.

2014 PCrLJ 494 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Contraband was recovered from secret cavities in a car, but no evidence connected the accused to the contraband or the car. The accused was deemed a juvenile with no criminal history. He was granted bail.

2014 YLR 772 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Two kilograms of Charas was recovered from the accused. Considering the quantity and the potential punishment, the accused, who had no previous convictions, was granted bail.

2014 PCrLJ 454 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT: Bail was refused to the accused who was driving a truck from which narcotics were recovered. The driver was considered the custodian of the vehicle, and merely claiming a lack of knowledge about the narcotics present was deemed insufficient. Moreover, the Forensic Science Laboratory’s report confirmed the presence of narcotics.

2014 YLR 632 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was granted due to procedural irregularities. The FIR was registered without deputing a competent officer as mandated, and there was a delay in sending samples for testing. Additionally, recovery witnesses were not appropriately mentioned, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.

2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was refused due to the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics from the accused’s vehicle. The absence of private persons as witnesses to the recovery was not deemed a valid ground for bail in this case.

2016 MLD 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: The accused was acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to establish the safe custody of the recovered substance and inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the deposit of samples.

2015 SCMR 133 SUPREME-COURT: Bail was cancelled because the accused was directly implicated in the trafficking of a substantial amount of heroin. Statements from various witnesses connected the accused to the offence.

2015 PCrLJ 1072 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court: Bail was refused due to the significant amount of narcotics recovered. The police were found to have acted with malafide intentions by not charging the accused under the stricter provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2015 YLR 568 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN: The application for cancellation of bail was dismissed due to the plausible mala fides on the part of the prosecution agency. The accused’s involvement in the offence was based only on a disclosure by another accused, which wasn’t admissible as evidence.

2015 PCrLJ 1508 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Bail was granted because the narcotics were not directly recovered from the accused’s possession. The quantity was just above the limit mentioned in S.9(b), making it a borderline case.

2015 MLD 383 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH: Bail was refused due to the substantial quantity of narcotics recovered and no evidence of mala fide or enmity against the police was presented by the accused.

2016 PCrLJ 1315 ISLAMABAD: Bail was allowed due to delays in sending samples for chemical analysis, and the borderline quantity of narcotics recovered.

2016 MLD 621 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE: Bail was granted as the nature of the recovered substance wasn’t confirmed, and the report from the Chemical Examiner was still awaited.

2016 MLD 857 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The person driving a vehicle should be held responsible for transportation of narcotics, implying their knowledge of the possession, whether it’s exclusive or joint.

Offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act are heinous in nature and deemed an offence against society. Therefore, caution is advised under Section 51 of the Act before granting bail.

Merely looking at the nature or quantity of narcotics does not entitle one to bail. The appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage.

2016 PCrLJ 330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

The offence of narcotic possession is heinous. The involvement in another similar crime can be a strong ground to refuse bail.

2016 SCMR 1424 SUPREME-COURT:

If there’s uncertainty regarding the weight of narcotics due to factors like packaging, and it’s close to a threshold, it can be considered a matter of further inquiry, which could potentially favour bail.

2016 YLR 388 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The duration of the sentence and delay in court proceedings can be grounds for suspension of a sentence and granting of bail.

2016 YLRN 74 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

If the weight of the narcotic is just slightly over the threshold, factors like packaging might be considered, and if the accused has a clean record, it might favour granting bail.

2016 YLRN 140 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Discrepancies in the arrest record and the failure to associate a private witness at the time of recovery can be grounds for bail.

The quantity of narcotics recovered and prior criminal record can influence the decision.

2016 PCrLJ 1075 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Cases where the quantity of the recovered narcotic is borderline between two sections of the Act can potentially favour bail.

Failure to associate private witnesses during recovery isn’t a strong point against the accused due to certain exclusions in the Act.

2017 MLD 1164 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

In borderline cases regarding the quantity of narcotics, the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.

2016 YLR 359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Non-association of public witnesses during recovery isn’t consequential if there’s no enmity or ill-will record against the police officials involved.

Delays in sending the narcotic substance for examination aren’t necessarily detrimental to the prosecution’s case if the rules are seen as directory.

2016 PCrLJ 754 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The recovery of a large quantity of narcotics, especially when pointed out by the accused, and the non-bailable nature of the offence under Section 51, usually disfavours the granting of bail.

2016 YLR 434 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Accused in possession of a large quantity of narcotics, especially while sitting in a vehicle, are usually not favoured for bail.

Offences involving large narcotics quantities, exceeding one kilogram, may lead to severe penalties, including death or life imprisonment.

Bail discretion shouldn’t be exercised liberally in the public’s larger interest when dealing with substantial narcotics recovery.

2016 MLD 621 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

Uncertainty regarding the nature and type of the recovered substance and awaiting the Chemical Examiner’s report can favour granting bail.

Whether the offence falls under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act or the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order can be decided during trial.

2016 PCrLJN 51 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

A significant quantity of narcotics recovery, especially in the presence of witnesses, is unfavourable for bail.

Deep evidence evaluation is not permissible at the bail stage.

Previous clean records of the accused can’t always be a determinant for bail.

2016 MLD 1825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

If there’s a failure to establish the safe custody of the recovered substance and discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, it can favour the accused’s acquittal.

Conviction based on untrustworthy testimony is not deemed safe.

2016 YLR 682 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court:

In cases involving vast narcotics quantities, the Anti-Narcotics Force, not local police, should conduct the investigation.

Bail is generally refused in cases where large amounts of narcotics are involved.

2016 PCrLJ 1495 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court:

Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, acts as a bar to granting bail in cases under the Act.

Refusal of bail is the norm, and its grant is an exception, requiring the accused to make a strong case.

Large narcotics recoveries make it difficult for the accused to receive bail.

2016 YLR 388 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

If the sentence duration is short and there’s a delay in court proceedings, it can be a ground for suspending the sentence and granting bail.

2016 SCMR 1447 SUPREME-COURT:

Immediate apprehension at the crime scene and possession of large narcotics quantities generally leads to bail refusal.

If there’s no evidence of enmity between the accused and the police, the case against the accused becomes stronger.

2017 PCrLJ 576 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

Discrepancies in the prosecution’s story, such as injuries to the accused, can favour the granting of bail.

Comments on corrupt police practices and poor investigation quality can also influence bail decisions.

2017 MLD 1367 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

When considering bail, the welfare of a minor, especially a suckling baby, should be paramount. If a mother’s incarceration indirectly punishes the child, it may warrant bail.

The teachings of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) can be considered, highlighting the importance of the child’s welfare in Islam.

2017 PCrLJ 438 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The driver of a vehicle has full control, making them liable for substances found within. Thus, bail can be declined if narcotics are found in a vehicle driven by the accused.

2017 PCrLJ 1661 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

If there are significant delays in trial proceedings, especially when the accused has been incarcerated for a considerable time without progress, it can favour the granting of bail.

2017 YLRN 332 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Failure to associate any private individuals as witnesses during narcotics recovery can be a ground for bail.

Discrepancies regarding the weight and nature of the recovered narcotics can also favour bail.

2017 PCrLJN 113 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

If the case is borderline between two provisions of the Act, the benefit of the discrepancy should be extended to the accused.

Again, failure to associate private witnesses can favour bail.

2016 MLD 621 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE:

If there’s ambiguity regarding the nature of the recovered substance and a delay in receiving the Chemical Examiner’s report, bail might be granted.

2016 PCrLJ 831 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The weight of the recovered narcotics and whether the offence falls under specific sections of the Act can influence bail decisions.

Not associating private witnesses can again be a factor favouring bail.

2016 YLR 388 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

A short sentence and delays in court proceedings can be a ground for suspending the sentence and granting bail.

2017 YLR 874 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

If the police fail to associate private individuals during the recovery process, especially when they have ample time, it can be a ground for bail.

When the accused has been incarcerated for an extended period without progress in the trial, bail can be favoured.

2017 MLD 496 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Police officials acting as sole recovery witnesses are competent and their testimony is valid unless proven to have enmity against the accused.

2017 YLRN 321 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The role and involvement of the accused at the time of arrest are crucial.

Significant delays in the trial and the prosecution’s inability to produce witnesses can favour bail.

2017 MLD 303 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court:

Non-association of independent witnesses during narcotics recovery can favour the granting of bail, especially if the recovery takes place in a populated area.

Police have codal formalities to adhere to before searching a shop.

The offence’s maximum punishment duration plays a role in bail considerations.

2017 PCrLJ 1012 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Police officers are competent witnesses, and their testimony is valid unless shown to have malicious intent against the accused.

2017 PCrLJN 240 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Non-compliance with certain sections of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act might not be a ground for holding the trial or conviction as unsound, especially if the recovery isn’t from a house or vessel.

2017 MLD 1376 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Statutory delays in the trial can favour the granting of bail, particularly if the accused has been incarcerated for an extended period without significant progress in the trial.

2017 YLRN 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Violations of certain sections related to recovery by officers below the rank of Sub-Inspector might be directory in nature and not mandatory. Such non-compliance might not be a ground for holding the trial/conviction as invalid.

2017 PCrLJ 438 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The role of the accused during the time of arrest is crucial. If a co-accused merely accompanies another accused and has no conscious knowledge of narcotics concealment, it might favour bail.

2017 SCMR 1194 SUPREME-COURT:

Delays in the trial, particularly if prosecution witnesses are not available or are fugitives from the law, can favour bail. Moreover, the age and medical conditions of the accused can also be considered.

2017 PCrLJ 1661 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Extended incarceration without significant progress in the trial can be a basis for bail. If the trial court is slow and has made minimal progress over an extended period, bail might be considered.

2017 YLR 874 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

If the accused has been incarcerated for an extended period without the framing of charges or the start of the trial, bail might be granted. Past criminal involvement or the probability of absconding are also factors considered in bail decisions.

2017 PCrLJN 240 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The non-compliance of certain provisions, such as Section 21 of the Act, might not be a ground for holding the trial or conviction as invalid, especially if said provisions are considered directory and not mandatory.

The location of the narcotics recovery (e.g., from the roadside) can impact the decision.

The nature of evidence, such as newspaper clippings, needs validation through the examination of the author as a court witness.

Offences under S. 9(c) are seen as offences against society, influencing the court’s decision.

2017 MLD 496 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH (1st & 3rd Instances):

Police officials are considered competent witnesses unless proven to have a bias against the accused.

A deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage.

The actual quantity and type of narcotic recovered and its verification through chemical examination can play a pivotal role in bail decisions.

2017 MLD 1367 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Consideration is given to the accused’s personal circumstances, such as being a mother with a suckling child, emphasising the welfare of minors.

Islamic principles, like those highlighting the welfare of suckling children, can influence bail decisions.

2017 SCMR 531 SUPREME-COURT:

The physical condition of the accused, such as disabilities, can be a factor for granting bail.

The relation or connection of the accused with the principal offender and the evidence connecting them to the crime is crucial.

2017 YLRN 36 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The circumstances of the arrest, such as the accused being caught in possession of narcotics while driving, play a role in the decision.

The specific role of the accused at the time of arrest, whether they were driving or merely a passenger, can impact the bail decision.

The punishment associated with the offence and its classification under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., is considered.

2017 PCrLJN 56 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

If an accused is arrested from a populated area, associating a private person as an attesting witness can be crucial.

Proper procedure should be followed, including separating samples on the spot and mentioning the mode of weighing the recovered narcotics in the FIR.

Delays in the prosecution’s part, like not producing any witness within a considerable time frame, can be grounds for granting bail.

2017 PCrLJ 1317 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court:

Entry into a house without permission or a search warrant is not permitted, and violating the sanctity of a home can lead to bail.

Proper documentation regarding the separation of samples for testing is essential.

If the alleged drug isn’t sent for verification, it cannot be presumed to be an intoxicant.

If two views are possible in a case, the one favouring the accused should be adopted.

2017 MLD 1367 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Personal circumstances, such as the welfare of minors, play a significant role. The welfare of a suckling child and the principles of Islam can influence bail decisions.

2017 PCrLJ 1661 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

Delays in trial, especially when only a few witnesses have been examined despite directives, can be grounds for granting bail.

2017 YLRN 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Proper procedures, such as determining who can lodge an FIR, are crucial. However, in some cases, immediate action might override this requirement.

2017 YLR 2141 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

The age and health of the accused can be considered. A lack of clarity in the FIR regarding recovery details can aid in bail.

The personal history of the accused, like prior convictions, is relevant.

2017 YLR 1134 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court:

If the same police official lodges an FIR and investigates the case, it can be challenged on grounds of fairness and impartiality.

The age of the accused, especially if they are a minor, is a significant factor.

2017 YLRN 447 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Specific details, such as the accused’s position at the time of arrest and the quantity of narcotics recovered, play a role in bail decisions.

2018 PCrLJ 467 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT:

The distinction between sub-clauses of S. 9 can be grounds for further inquiry, impacting bail decisions.

2018 YLR 1674 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN:

Proper witness testimony, along with evidence like travel tickets and vehicle registration numbers, are crucial.

The quantity of contraband and the potential punishment are significant factors.

2018 MLD 129 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH:

Associating private witnesses, especially with prior spy information, is vital.

Delays in sending representative parts of recovered narcotics for chemical analysis can be grounds for bail.

The history of the accused, particularly previous involvement in similar cases, is relevant.

By The Josh and Mak Team

Josh and Mak International is a distinguished law firm with a rich legacy that sets us apart in the legal profession. With years of experience and expertise, we have earned a reputation as a trusted and reputable name in the field. Our firm is built on the pillars of professionalism, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to providing excellent legal services. We have a profound understanding of the law and its complexities, enabling us to deliver tailored legal solutions to meet the unique needs of each client. As a virtual law firm, we offer affordable, high-quality legal advice delivered with the same dedication and work ethic as traditional firms. Choose Josh and Mak International as your legal partner and gain an unfair strategic advantage over your competitors.

error: Content is Copyright protected !!