ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---Through this application, the applicant seeks bail in case FIR No.113 of 2021 registered with Police Station, City Sibi, under Section 9(c)' of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("the Act").
Pertinent to mention here that earlier the application for same relief was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge Sibi vide order dated 20.01.2022.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Muhammad Fahim SI lodged the referred FIR with the allegation of recovery of a packet, having two kilograms and 25 grams charas from the possession of the accused/applicant.
3. Heard. Perused the record. As per prosecution 2.25 kilograms charas were recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant. No doubt the alleged contraband has been recovered from the personal possession of accused. The liberty of a person is paramount consideration. While dealing with the question of whether or not bail is to be granted to an accused, it has to be kept in mind that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive. Imprisonment of a person and deprivation of his liberty, cannot be described other than, being a punishment, unless no less restrictive alternative is available to ensure that the accused will stand his trial when called upon to do so. It is well settled principle of law that every accused will be presumed to be blue eyed boy of the law until and unless he may be found guilty of the alleged charge and law cannot be stretched upon in favour of the prosecution, particularly at bail stage. Mere quantity or gravity of the offence may not disentitle the applicant from concession of bail as bail cannot be withheld as an advanced punishment and he could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2012 SCMR 1732, whereby it has been held as under:
6. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: (AIR 1977 SC 2447), this Court opined: - "(2) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
(3)-1t, is true that the gravity of the of fence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so; the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial Mtn and lie was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report him self before the police station at Baren once every fortnight."
4. It is consistent view that for the purpose of bail quantum of contraband and expected quantum of punishment to be awarded by the trial court has to be taken into consideration while deciding bail of the accused. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan 2012 SCMR 573, whereby it has been held as under: "4. Without entering into the merits of the case, as the quantum of 'sentence has to be commensurate with the quantum of substance recovered, we doubt the petitioner can be awarded maximum sentence provided by the Statute. Needless to say that the Court while hearing, a petition for bail is not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the Statute but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The fact that petitioner has been in jail for three months yet commencement of his trial let alone its conclusion is not in sight, would also tilt the scales of justice in favour of bail rather than jail."
In view of above, the application is allowed. The applicant Muhammad Ismail son of Abdul Rahim is granted bail under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in FIR No.113 of 2021, Police Station City Sibi, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with PR bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this court or the trial Court.
Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, shall not have any bearings on merits of the case.