' Javed alias Jeda, petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,523 of 2008 dated 23-10-2008 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered with Police Station Gow almandi , Lahore.
2. On 23-11-2008 at 12-30 p.m. Nofal Zahoor, S.-I., received secret information that one person was standing outside Darbar Shah Abul-Amar near a flowers shop waiting for his special customers while holding a black shopper, which might contain narcotic. The S.-I. Along with other police officials reached the said place, apprehended the said suspect and found 1.750 kilogram Charas in the shopper in his hand.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner in support of the bail petition has contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 10 months; that the petitioner is 65 years of age and he is not previous convict and the complainant has been dismissed from service on the charge of corruption. The learned counsel relying upon the case-law laid down by this Court in Ghulam Murtaza another v. State PLD 2009 Lah. 362 has submitted that in case of conviction, if any, for such like quantity of Charas the petitioner can be sentenced for only four years and six months and thus the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) , Cr . P. C .
4. The learned D.P.-G. Has opposed the bail application on the grounds that huge quantity of Charas has been recovered from his possession; that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that not only the petitioner but his other family members are involved in number of cases and that the petitioner being habitual offender is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. The petitioner was found in possession of 1.750 kilogram Charas. The learned D.P.-G. Has placed on record certified copy of criminal record of the petitioner and his close relatives. Eleven cases including five narcotic cases stand registered against the petitioner. Three sons of the petitioner namely Amir Javed alias Saeen, Khawar Javed alias Choocha and Babar Javed - alias Bhaloo are respectively involved in 20, 3 and 6 cases. Two brothers-in-law of the petitioner namely Azaan Shahid and Shahzada are also respectively involved in 10 -and 3 cases. Most of the cases are under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
6. The contention of the learned counsel that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause as under the above referred case-law the, petitioner, if convicted, would only be sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment, is misconceived. While refusing or granting bail, the sentence provided in the statute is to be taken into consideration. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for fourteen years, The sentences mentioned in the referred case are to be considered only when after trial the sentence is to be imposed on a convict.
7. The case against the petitioner has been registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which is a special law. Section 51 of the Act also imposes an embargo in the following words upon grant of bail in cases registered under the Act:--- "51. No bail to be granted in respect of certain cases.--- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 496 and 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), bail shall not be granted to an accused person charged with an offence under this Act or under any other law relating to narcotics where the offence is punishable with death.
(2) In the case of other offences punishable under this Act, bail shall not be normally granted unless the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit- case for the grant of bail and against the security of a substantial amount."
7. The learned counsel for petitioner has failed to bring on record any material, which may show any mala fide or malice on the part of police for his false involvement in the case in hand or the cases referred in his previous record.
8. For the sake of arguments if it is admitted that the complainant has been dismissed from service on the charge of corruption that cannot be made a ground for bail and also this assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is an oral one and without any documentary proof.
9. Huge quantity of Charas has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. He and his family members have been involved in number of cases of similar nature. He appears to be a habitual criminal of drug trade. Such-like persons may not be let loose onto the society for repeating their nefarious activities.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
His bail application is, therefore, dismissed.