IMTIAZ ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Imtiaz Ali, who was charged with the possession of 20 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the procedural irregularities in the recovery and sampling of the alleged contraband. The prosecution alleged that the narcotics were recovered in the form of 'patties/plates' from the applicant's possession. However, the Court noted that neither the F.I.R. nor the mashirnama specified the number of patties recovered. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to clarify whether the sample sent for chemical analysis was taken from each patty separately or from a single source, nor was there evidence that samples were sealed individually. Relying on the principle established in PLD 2004 SC 856, the Court held that without separate sampling, it could not be conclusively determined that the entire recovered material was contraband. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing that procedural lapses in the recovery process create sufficient doubt to warrant relief at the pre-trial stage.
- Does the failure to specify the number of individual units of contraband in the recovery memo constitute a ground for bail?
- Is the prosecution required to take separate samples from each individual unit of recovered narcotics to prove possession of the entire quantity?
- Can a court grant bail when there is ambiguity regarding the sampling procedure of alleged narcotics?
ORDER
1. ' Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the question needs to be resolved as to whether the 20 kilograms Charas, allegedly recovered were in the exclusive possession of the applicant suffice it to say that the prosecution case is that a document was also recovered from the possession of the applicant, which, prima facie, indicates the vehicle in question having been purchased by applicant.
2. It is a settled principle of law that wherever an accused is able to show the cogent reason to indicate possibility of his false implication in the case in question, it may be considered to be a good case for grant of bail, otherwise police officers are as good witnesses as anybody else could be at this stage of the case, there is no material to give such an indication from the side of applicant.
3. It is a settled principle of law that investigating agency will otherwise be competent to enter into the re-investigation of any incident; but then it is also a settled principle of law that the Court of law is not to act as ipsi dixit of police, and that subsequent report will always be subject to record of evidence in the case.
4. The point in favour of the accused/applicant, involved in the case, is that the contents of the F.I.R.
5. And the mashirnama of recovery and arrest clearly mention that 20 kilograms of Charas were allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant in the shape of "Patties/Plates" but the number of patties/plates is not mentioned either in the F.I.R. Or in the mashiranama. Same further stated that a quantity of 250 grams Charas was taken out of the entire recovered material for the purpose of Chemical Analysis, but without making any further mention as to whether the same was taken out separately from each of the patties/plates, or only from one of the same, and with no furthermention if the simple was taken out from the patties separately; so also, if taken out separately, there is no mention that the same was ever sealed separately by the recovery officer.
6. ' In PLD 2004 SC 856 Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted accused of the said reported case with the observations that the narcotics material having been recovered in the shape of rods and the sample not having been taken out of the same, separately, no conclusive finding could be recorded that all the rods were of contraband narcotics; hence the proper and final finding is yet to be recorded as to all the "patties" being of Charas and not otherwise.
7. ' For the above reason,the applicant is hereby admitted to bail with two sureties, each in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Rupees five lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 8 cases
- ALI SHER Versus State 2022 YLRN 34
- IRSHAD JATOI vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1065
- NADEEM DETHO vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1770
- Abdul Waheed vs The State K.L.R. 2009 Criminal Gases 142
- ABDUL WAHEED Versus State 2009 MLD 151
- PERVAIZ AHMED vs THE STATE 2008 PLD Karachi 14
- NADEEM vs THE STATE 2007 MLD 1092
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus State 2007 YLR 1973