Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Yaqoob after his earlier application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 33 dated 6.2.2004 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 114 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry on grounds of alleged police enmity, delayed transmission of samples to the chemical examiner, and lack of private witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail, noting that the asserted enmity was presumptive, independent witnesses had witnessed the recovery, and the huge quantity of recovered narcotics fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court dismissed the petition while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within four months.
- Whether alleged police enmity and delayed transmission of chemical samples furnish sufficient grounds for post-arrest bail in narcotics cases involving huge quantities?
- Does the recovery of a huge quantity of charas falling within the prohibitory clause bar the grant of bail when prima facie incriminating evidence connects the accused to the offence?
- Whether speculative allegations of false implication by a complainant in a separate murder case constitute a valid basis for granting bail?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.- Petitioner was refused post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 14.4.2005 in case vide FIR No. 33, dated 6.2.2004 under Section 9(c), CNSA, 1997 registered with Police Station Qaboola, District Pakpattan Sharif. He has now filed instant petition for the same relief.
2. Gravamen of the charges as it appears from the FIR is that Muhammad Anwar, S.I. Of police station Qaboola, on spy information conducted raid and, recovered 114 kilograms charas from the petitioner while he was sitting near a graveyard. The petitioner after remaining on physical remand has since been remitted to judicial lock-up.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and. Has been involved in a false case on account of enmity/animosity of police/complainant. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a complainant of a murder case and has been involved in a fake narcotics case in order to exert pressure on him for compromise with the accused persons.
According to him, mother of the petitioner-moved a complaint before the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif for transfer of investigation from Muhammad Anwar, S.I. Complainant, who in retaliation, involved the petitioner in the case in hand, It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the sample of charas was sent to chemical examiner with a delay of 13 days which makes the prosecution version highly doubtful and renders the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry, It was also urged that recovery is fake, as the same was not witnessed by any of the private witness.
4. Bail was opposed with the arguments that the petitioner is named in the FIR and was caught red handed with huge quantity of charas. It was further submitted that enmity asserted against the complainant is speculative, thus the same does not furnish any basis for grant of bail. According to the learned counsel for the State, challan of the case has already been submitted for trial and the same being ripe for decision, petitioner may not be released, as prayed.
5. We have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record with their assistance. Reasons asserted for false implication of the petitioner, are simply presumptive. Petitioner may be a complainant of some murder case but that does not give him a licence to deal in narcotics business. Prima facie, charas weighing VA kilograms was recovered from the petitioner. And the recovery memo has been witnessed by two independent persons against whom he has no enmity/animosity. Prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence charged which falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, and the same is punishable with capital punishment. Though trial of the case has not commenced yet the challan has been remitted to the concerned court for its trial and is ripe for decision.
6. For the reasons noted above, no case for bail could be made out hence, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed The Trial Court is, however, directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of four months under intimation to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.