Syed KARIM vs THE STATE
The applicant, Syed Karim, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the possession of 36 kilograms of Charas, an offence punishable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution's case rested solely on the disclosure made by co-accused persons to the police during the investigation, as the applicant was not apprehended at the scene and was later declared an absconder for three years. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite his prolonged abscondence, given that the only evidence against him was the inadmissible statement of a co-accused and that a co-accused in a similar position had already been granted bail. The Court held that while a fugitive from law generally loses certain rights, the applicant was entitled to bail because the evidence against him was inadmissible under established Supreme Court precedents. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused facing identical allegations had been granted bail by the trial court. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
- Is the statement of a co-accused made to the police during investigation admissible as evidence against another accused?
- Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications when a co-accused in a similar position has already been granted bail?
- Can a fugitive from law be granted bail if the evidence against them is legally inadmissible?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' WAHID BUX BROHI, J.---Applicant Syed Karim is facing his trial for an offence punishable under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 arising out of F.I.R. No.80 of 1998 Police Station SITE, Karachi.
2. ' It is the case of prosecution as per F.I.R. That on 10-3-1998 complainant Inspector Shahabullah of CIA West Karachi, on receiving spy information, intercepted a Suzuki Pickup and secured a huge quantity of Charas in the form of Slabs, weighing 36 kgs. Six persons were sitting in the Suzuki out of whom two made their escape good. Those who were arrested disclosed the names of other two as Syed Karim and Sahal Akbar. After usual investigation challan was submitted in Court showing Syed Karim, the applicant and two others namely Jamil Khan Afridi and Shahal Akbar as absconders.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Ilamdin Khatak, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Shoeb M. Ashraf, Spl.
4. Prosecutor ANF for the State.
5. ' Mr. Ilamdin Khatak, learned counsel for applicant argued that the only evidence against the applicant is the version given by the co-accused to the police otherwise there is no direct evidence connecting him with the offence. He further submitted that Jamil has been granted bail by the trial Court on the ground that his name was disclosed by the co-accused during investigation, therefore, under the rule of consistency the applicant was entitled to bail. In support of his contentions he cited State v. Abdul Qayum (2001 SCM R 14). Mr. Shoeb M. Ashraf, Spl. Prosecutor ANF opposed the bail and submitted that the applicant remained absconder for a period of three years from 10-3-1998 to 2-4-2001. He was, as such, not entitled to concession of bail. He relied on M. Sadiq v, Sadiq (PLD 1985 SC 182).
6. We would agree with Mr. Shoeb M. Ashraf, Spl. Prosecutor ANF that a fugitive from law ordinarily loses some of his normal rights and the 'concessions generally available may not be extended to him, but in the instant case the applicant has been arrested on 2-4-2001 and for a period of over two years he is in custody. The entire evidence was collected during investigation and the abscondence was not likely to destroy the same. Secondly, the only evidence against the applicant is the version of co-accused given to police during investigation and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in David Dufaur v.
7. State (SBLR 2001 SC 132) such evidence has got no value and is not admissible. State v. Abdul Qayum (2001 SCM R 14) is also on the same point. In such a situation when the only evidence against him is that which in view of the above dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court is inadmissible in evidence the concession of bail need not be withheld since he has already remained in jail for a period of over two years. Similarly, following the rule of consistency we are again convinced with the contention of Mr. Ilamdin Khatak that when learned trial Court extended the concession of bail on the same premises to the co-accused the applicant was equally entitled to bail.
8. For these reasons we allow the application and grant bail to the applicant. He may be released on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.200,000 and executing PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.