ABDUL MAJEED alias MAJEED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under the Excise Divisional Special Squad, Hyderabad, regarding the recovery of narcotics (charas) from the house of a co-accused. The applicant was implicated solely based on the statement of a co-accused and was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the lack of incriminating evidence and the procedural irregularities in declaring him a proclaimed offender. The Court held that the statement of a co-accused is inadmissible evidence and insufficient to sustain the accusation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial court acted mechanically in declaring the applicant a proclaimed offender without proper identification details, and noted that the co-accused from whose premises the narcotics were recovered had already been acquitted. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, finding that the applicant had been maliciously implicated by the Excise officials. The judgment reinforces the principle that a co-accused's statement alone is insufficient for conviction and that procedural due process must be strictly followed when declaring an individual a proclaimed offender.
- Is the statement of a co-accused sufficient evidence to deny pre-arrest bail?
- Can a trial court declare an accused a proclaimed offender without proper identification details?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused from whose premises narcotics were recovered provide grounds for bail for other accused persons?
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail for being involved in Crime No,01-2005 registered by Excise Divisional Special Squad Hyderabad on 1-1-2005 on the accusation of recovery of charas from the house of co-accused Arif Afridi. The applicant was implicated on the basis of statement of co- accused namely. Muhammad Arshad, who was allegedly arrested on the spot.
2. ' Learned State Counsel has, at the outset candidly conceded that there is no evidence against the applicant except that his name was disclosed by the co-accused and that he was declared as Proclaimed Offender. Learned State Counsel further conceds that one of the co-accused namely Arif Afridi has been acquitted by the trial Court.
3. ' The arguments addressed at the bar have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
4. ' Admittedly, there is no Incriminating evidence against the applicant. The statement of co- accused is obviously inadmissible piece of evidence which cannot be used against the applicant.
5. He was declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court though neither his full name nor parentage or address was mentioned in the challan. The trial Court appears to have acted in a mechanical manner while declaring the applicant proclaimed offender. The co-accused from whose house the alleged narcotics was recovered has been acquitted. In the circumstances, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant has been maliciously roped in the present case by Excise officials.
6. ' Accordingly, interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM QURESHI vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2578