Muhammad Ilyas accused was arrested in pursuance of an F.I.R. No. 104 of 2000, dated 21-4-2000 of Police Station, Motra of District Sialkot upon recovery of 1Kg. Of Charras from his person. He petitioned the learned Court of Session for his release on bail which petition was dismissed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Daska on 20-9-2000 on the ground that a huge quantity of narcotics had been recovered from his possession and further that although the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause yet in view of the quantity of narcotics, recovered, the discretion could not be exercised in favour of the said accused. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No.7204-B of 2001, praying for his release on bail. Notice was issued in this petition on 6-12-2000 and on 30-1-2001 when this petition came up for hearing, it transpired that the petitioner had since been released by the learned Sessions Judge of Sialkot.
2. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show-louse why the said bail secured by him from the Court of Session during the pendency of his petition for bad before this Court, be not recalled. A report was also called from the learned Sessions Judge about the circumstances under which he had released the petitioner on bail during the pendency of his petition for the said purpose before this Court. The report of the learned Sessions Judge as also his order, dated 14-12-2000, have since been received and perused.
3. From the said bail granting order, dated 14-12-2000, it transpires that it was during the course of inspection of jail by the learned Sessions Judge that the Superintendent of the said jail handed over a list of 86 under--trial prisoners to the learned Sessions Judge alongwith their respective applications praying for grant of bail to them. Through the said general order, the said learned Sessions Judge directed the release of those under--trial prisoners on bail who were in custody on charge of offences punishable under sections 9(a) and 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act of 1997 and from whom narcotics up to less than 1 Kg. Had been allegedly recovered.
4. As per the F.I.R., it was a 4uantity of 1 Kg. Of narcotics which had been recovered from Muhammad Ryas accused and it is not understandable as to how the Superintendent of Jail released the said Muhammad Ilyas accused in pursuance of this order of the learned Sessions Judge. Even otherwise, release of Muhammad Ilyas accused on bail by the learned Sessions Judge during the pendency of his petition for the purpose before this Court and when a learned Additional Sessions Judge had earlier refused bail to the petitioner, is open to serious exception. In this view of the matter, the bail allowed to the petitioner through the abovementioned order of the learned Sessions Judge is recalled and he is directed to be taken into custody in terms of section 497 of the Cr.P.C.
5. Since the release of the petitioner on bail in the above-noticed manner could not be considered to be a result of any deceitful act by the petitioner, therefore, his petition before this Court for his release on bail is being decided on merits.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvasses bail for him on the ground that the case of the petitioner did not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the petitioner had no previous history of involvement in such-like cases; that all the witnesses against the petitioner were police officials; that the petitioner had been in custody for about 8 months before he was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge; that what had been recovered from the petitioner was Charas which was a narcotics -not as deadly as Heroin and finally that no useful purpose would 1 back to jail.
7. It is true that the case of the petitioner section 9(b) of the C.N.S. Act of 1.997-which is not hit by contained either in section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C. Or the section 51 of the C.N.S. Act of 1997 but this does not make the offence in question a bailable offence. Discretion still remains with the competent court to consider judiciously whether a person accused of such an offence did or did not deserve to be released on bail. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that persons allegedly involved in spreading narcotics in society are not the kind of the persons who were worthy of grant of any discretionary relief to them unless they could demonstrate that no reasonable grounds existed to believe that such an accused person was guilty of the offences alleged, which is not the situation in the present case. It is a principle of law too well established by now that police officials were competent witnesses in the eye of law and unless it could be demonstrated that the police officials in question had any motive or reason to falsely implicate an accused person, their testimony could not be discarded only because they happened to be employees of Police Department. The C.N.S. Act of 1997, in the matter of punishment of offenders, did not envisage any distinction between psychotropic substance of different types.
8. It is true that the petitioner has been in custody for about 8 months but such a term of period does not qualify the petitioner to be released on bail on account of delay in terms of the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C.
9. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
10. Before we part with this order, we would like to place our displeasure on record about the above-noticed manner in which the accused persons were being released from jails. Grant of bail to an accused person in custody is a judicial act which act has to be performed in accordance with the established norms and principles governing the subject. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge was in serious error in having granted bail to the accused persons without applying his judicial mind and without even finding out whether any petition of any of the accused person was or was not pending or earlier decided by the superior Courts. The learned Judicial Officers should, in future, refrain from dealing with the bail matter or the release of the accused persons/convicts in the above-noticed manner.
11. A copy of this order shall be sent to all the learned Sessions Judges in the Province of the Punjab who shall then communicate the same to all the other. Judicial Officers within their respective jurisdiction for their information and guidance.
12. This also disposes of Criminal Miscellaneous No.2992-C/B of 2001