ALI BAIG, J.---This application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. has been filed by the learned Deputy Advocate General Gilgit Baltistan on behalf of the State for cancellation of bail granted by the learned special Judge CNSA/Sessions Judge Gilgit in favour of the respondent.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case leading to the filing of this petition are that on 16-4-2018 at 10 a.m. the local police had allegedly recovered one K.G. contraband charas and 5 grams opium from the present respondent/accused at Naseem Cenima Chowk Gilgit and accordingly a criminal case was registered against the present respondent under section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 vide FIR No,36/2018 at Police Station AirPort Gilgit and respondent /accused was arrested by the police. After his arrest the respondent had filed a bail petition before the learned Special Judge CNSA/Sessions Judge Gilgit which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gilgit vide the impugned order dated 29- 5-2018 and respondent was admitted to post arrest bail , hence this petition filed under section 497(5), Cr. P. C .
3. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of State contended that the respondent/accused was directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and one K.G contraband charas and 5 grams opium was recovered from the possession of the respondent. The learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that offence under section 9(c) CNSA, 1997 falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and the learned trial court has wrongly allowed bail in favour of the respondent which may be cancelled.
4. We have heard the learned Dy. Advocate General and perused the record.
5. Admittedly only 1000 grams charas was recovered from the possession of the respondent as evident from the contents of FIR as such where recovery of contraband charas did not exceeds the limits between 900 grams to 1500 grams the case being border line between subsections (B) and
(C) of section 9 of Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 prima facie does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and bail in the offences which do not fall within the ambit of Prohibitory Clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. is a rule and refusal of bail is an exception.
Moreover, One Muhammad Hussain H.C. has lodged FIR against the respondent and arrested the respondent /accused in gross violation of provisions of section 21 of CNSA, 1997, hence case of the respondent is one of further inquiry. In this connection reference is made to the reported judgment of Peshawar High Court reported in PLD 2013 Peshawar page-32.
7. Moreover, when bail is granted by court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of valid reasons the same cannot be cancelled until and unless exceptional grounds are established by prosecution.
8. In view of above discussion, we have come to conclusion that the learned trial court has rightly granted bail in favour of the respondent and no valid grounds are available to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/accused by the learned trial court.
9. Resultantly we find no substance in the instant petition filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., therefore, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. File.