MUMTAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mumtaz Ahmad, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 152 dated 30-7-2005 registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Karampur, District Vehari, following an alleged recovery of 20 Kgs of Charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the circumstances of the recovery and the fact that the owner of the house from where the narcotics were allegedly recovered was declared innocent. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioner falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the curious procedure adopted for drawing samples and the exoneration of the co-accused. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the co-accused from whose house the recovery was made has been declared innocent?
- Does the mixing of contents from multiple packets instead of sampling individually create a case for further inquiry?
- Whether the petitioner's case falls under further inquiry under the criminal procedure law?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' On 3-7-2005, Allah Ditta, A.S.-I. Filed a report at Police Station, Karampur, District Vehari that while he was present at Bhatta Umar Din along with other police officials an informer reported that the petitioner along with his brother Aziz Ahmad and Muhammad Ramzan son of Ali Ahmad are openly selling narcotics. He arranged a raiding party and raided in Basti Pir Chhatta. The said three persons were present who ran away and were chased. Mumtaz Ahmad was arrested who stated the names of the other two persons. Upon his pointation 20 packets of Charas were recovered from the eastern wall of the house of Aziz Ahmad. These were opened and mixed together and weight was found to be 20 Kgs. Ten grams were separated and two parcels were prepared. A case under section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 was registered vide F.I.R. No, 152 dated 30-7-2005 at the said police station. The petitioner applied for bail which was refused by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mailsi on 30-1-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery was made from the person of the petitioner and Aziz Ahmad from whose house the recovery has been allegedly made, has been declared innocent. He further contends that the A.S.-I. Could not have conducted the raid.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. However, it is not denied that Aziz Ahmad has been found to be innocent. As to the competency of the A.S.-I. To conduct raid he relies on the case "Syed M. Hashim v. Circle Officer Anti-Corruption" 2002 PCr.LJ 440.
4. We have gone through the available records. Now we have already reproduced above the contents of the F.I.R. It will be seen that whereas it was allegedly reported that the persons named therein are openly selling narcotics no such activity was found by the raiding party. Mumtaz Ahmad was apprehended and according to the F.I.R. Charas was recovered from the house of Aziz Ahmad. Now we have examined the recovery Memo. We find that somehow or the other, samples from each of the 20 packets were not taken. On the other hand the packets were opened and the contents were mixed and weighed. This procedure is rather curious to say the least. Aziz Ahmad, brother of the petitioner has since been declared innocent. In the said peculiar circumstances of the case, we do find that the case of the _petitioner is of further inquiry, to be determined in the course of trial, if any.
5. Cr1. Miscellaneous accordingly is allowed. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00.000 with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.