In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan  
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial  
 
Crl.P.L.A. No.15 of 2015 
(On appeal from judgment of Peshawar High Court,  
Peshawar dated 8.12.2014 passed in Crl. Misc. (BA) of 2014) 
Socha Gul  
Petitioner 
Versus 
The State 
Respondents 
 
For the petitioner:  
 
Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
For the State/ANF: 
 
Nemo. 
 
On Court Notice:  
 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
27.3.2015 
Judgment 
 
 
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J – Petitioner, Socha Gul, who is 
one of the nominated accused in crime No.91 dated 30.9.2014, Police 
Station ANF, District Peshawar, for commission of offence under 
section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (“CNS Act 
of 1997”), with the allegation that, upon spy information, when he was 
apprehended by the personnel of Anti-Narcotic Force, upon his 
personal search, four kilograms charas was recovered from his 
possession; was refused bail by the learned Judge, Special Court 
(CNS), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, vide order dated 15.10.2014. 
Thereafter he moved Criminal Miscellaneous (BA) No.1716-P of 2014 
before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, with the prayer for grant 
of bail in the said crime, but it was also declined, vide impugned order 
dated 8.12.2014.  
Crl. P. No.15 of 2015 
2 
2. 
We have heard the learned ASC for the petitioner. He 
contends that petitioner, who has his employment abroad, had 
returned to Pakistan only three weeks before the date of alleged 
occurrence and has been falsely implicated in the commission of crime 
by the ANF Police. In such circumstances, following the ratio of 
judgment in the case of Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan versus the 
State (2012 SCMR 573), qua the quantity of narcotic substance 
allegedly recovered from him, having remained in custody for over five 
months, he is entitled for grant of bail.  
3. 
We have perused the case record and seen that the 
offence, for which the petitioner has been charged, falls under section 
9(c) of CNS Act of 1997, as the quantity of narcotic substance (charas) 
recovered from his possession is four kilograms. The samples of charas 
contained in four packets were separately taken, sealed on the spot, 
and report of Forensic Science Laboratory has been received in the 
positive. In such circumstances, at this stage no case for grant of bail 
is made out, merely for the reason that in the case of Jamal-ud-Din 
(supra) the honourable two member Bench of this Court has admitted 
the accused to bail with the observation that, while hearing a petition 
for grant of bail, the Court is not to keep in view the maximum 
sentence provided by the statute for the charged offence, but the one 
which is likely to be entailed.  
4. 
In the present case, the accused is charged with the 
commission of offence under section 9(c) of CNS Act of 1997, which 
reads as under:- 
“9. Punishment for contravention of Sections 6, 7 and 8.---  Whoever 
contravenes the provisions of Section 6, 7 or 8 shall be punishable with:- 
Crl. P. No.15 of 2015 
3 
a. imprisonment which may extent to two years, or with fine, or 
with both, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic 
substance of controlled substance is ten 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 one 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 upto one million rupees, if the quantity of 
narcotics drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance 
exceeds the limits specified in clause (c): 
Provided that, if the quantity exceeds ten kilograms the punishment 
shall not be less than imprisonment for life. 
5. 
From the above reproduction, intent and scheme of 
the legislator is quite clear about the quantum of prescribed 
punishment under section 9(c) (ibid), which could be either death or 
imprisonment for life or an imprisonment for a term which may extent 
to fourteen years, in addition to fine upto one million rupees. In our 
opinion, in such circumstances, neither categorization of sentencing 
nor any guess work or speculative exercise could be undertaken by the 
Court at bail stage to enlarge an accused on bail in such crimes, which 
will amount to pre-empting the mind of the trial Court, controlling its 
powers in the matter of sentencing an accused and determining the 
quantum of sentence upon his conviction.  
6. 
In the case of Ghulam Murtaza versus the State (PLD 
2009 Lahore 362), which is an order in a reference arising out of an 
appeal under the CNS Act 1997, and is frequently referred in the 
context of sentencing the accused convicted under CNS Act of 1997, 
Crl. P. No.15 of 2015 
4 
inter alia, keeping this aspect in mind, the larger Bench of the Lahore 
High Court, while categorizing the sentences of an accused on the 
criteria of nature of narcotic substance recovered and its quantity, has 
aptly observed  as under:- 
“10. 
It goes without saying that in a particular case carrying some 
special features relevant to the matter of sentence a Court may depart 
from the norms and standards prescribed above but in all such cases 
the Court concerned shall be obliged to record its reasons for such 
departure.” 
7. 
Again, in the case of Nadeem Ashraf versus State (2013 
SCMR 1538), making reference to the judgment in the case of  Ameer 
Zeb versus State (PLD 2012 S.C. 380), in a narcotics case, while 
refusing bail, the issue of quantity of recovered narcotics substance 
qua method/mode of its sampling and its relevancy at bail stage has 
been dilated by the Court in the following words:- 
“4. 
Admittedly the trial has yet to commence and it would be 
rather presumptuous on the part of the petitioner to infer that 
the prosecution would lead evidence only to the extent of the 
weight to which reference has been made by the petitioner’s 
learned counsel. It is always open for the parties and in this 
case for the prosecution to lead further evidence and to request 
the court that it be allowed to send the entire narcotics 
allegedly recovered from the petitioner for chemical analysis.”. 
8. 
It is pertinent to mention here that offences punishable 
under CNS Act of 1997 are by its nature heinous and considered to be 
the offences against the society at large and it is for this reason that 
the statute itself has provided a note of caution under section 51 of 
CNS Act of 1997 before enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary 
course. When we refer to the standards set out under section 497 
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under 
Crl. P. No.15 of 2015 
5 
section 9(c) of CNS Act of 1997, even on that basis we find that an 
accused charged with an offence, prescribing various punishments, as 
reproduced above, is not entitled for grant of bail merely on account of 
the nature or quantity of narcotic substance, being four kilograms. 
Firstly, as deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail 
stage and secondly, in such situation, looking to the peculiar features 
and nature of the offence, the trial Court may depart from the normal 
standards prescribed in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) and award 
him any other legal punishment. Thus, in our opinion, ratio of 
judgment in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) is not relevant at bail 
stage. 
9. 
For the foregoing reasons, leave is refused and this 
petition is dismissed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                              
 
Islamabad, 
27th March, 2015 
Approved for reporting. 
Riaz 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
                               Judge 
 
 
       
                                Judge                               
 
  
