MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN vs STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant, Muhammad Farooq Khan, was charged with possessing and transporting 25 kilograms of Charas. The trial court initially refused bail, citing the large quantity of narcotics involved and the stringent nature of narcotic laws. The prosecution alleged the applicant escaped during a police encounter, though he was not identified by the police at the scene and was implicated solely based on the statements of co-accused who were subsequently exonerated. The High Court observed that the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) had illegally entrusted the investigation to his own subordinate, in direct violation of Article 18(4) of the Police Order, 2002, as the offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, carries a penalty exceeding three years. The Court held that while this procedural illegality might not vitiate the trial, it severely compromised the fairness and credibility of the investigation. Given the lack of identification and the questionable investigative process, the Court granted the applicant bail, emphasizing that procedural violations by law enforcement undermine the integrity of the prosecution's case.
- Can a Station House Officer entrust the investigation of an offence punishable with more than three years imprisonment to his own subordinate under the Police Order, 2002?
- Does the illegal entrustment of an investigation by a complainant to his subordinate vitiate the entire trial?
- Is the identification of an accused by co-accused who were later exonerated sufficient to deny bail in a narcotics case?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 18(4), Police Order 2002
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J.--Applicant Muhammad Farooq Khan, facing charge of possessing/transporting 25 kilograms of Charas has applied for bail. The trial Court has refused him bail mainly on the ground that a very big quantity of Charas i.e. 25 kilograms was involved in the case and that in narcotic cases law regarding grant of bail was very stringent.
2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 3-4-2006 at. 1805 hours Inspector Muhammad Saeed Ahmed Rind, Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station Defence, Karachi, accompanied by other members of his team, intercepted a Jeep Bearing No. BC-9158 in a street behind Asif Hotel, near Al-Madina Mosque, "C" Area, Defence-Ill. the four occupants of the jeep were armed with pistols and they opened fires upon police. Police returned the fires, and succeeded to apprehend two of them, namely, Buland Khan and Amir Abbasi, and seized one pistol from each. The remaining two managed to escape. Nobody was hurt. On search 25 kilograms of Charas and 25 pints of indigenous liquor were secured from the jeep. Buland Khan and. Arnir Abbasi told police that the escapees were Sabz Ali alias Malanga and Farooq Khan and that the Charas and liquor belonged to the latter. The memo. of their arrest and recovery as well as the first information report (F.I.R.) recorded in the book maintained under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shows that the escapees were not known to the S. H.O. or any member of his team. They further show that on the basis of their own statements Buland Khan and Amir Abbasi were exonerated from the charge of possessing/transporting the Charas and Liquor and only one of the escapees, namely present applicant Farooq Khan was charged for that. He was arrested on 5-4-2006 while he was in custody in some other case.
3. The F.I.R. shows that the S. H.O. entrusted the investigation to one of his subordinates, namely, Sub-Inspector Raja Jahangir, though according to clause (4) of Article 18 of the Police Order, 2002, the investigation was to be made by the investigation staff and he could not entrust the investigation to Ins own subordinate belonging to the staff of his police station. The proviso to the clause, which according to the rules of interpretation has to be strictly construed, providing that the Government may, by general or special order, entrust the investigation of offences under local or special laws punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, to the police station staff, will also be of no help as in the present case the offence of possessing/transporting 25 kilograms of Charas is punishable under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a terms which may extend to fourteen years. Thus, the entrustment of "investigationby the complainant to his own subordinate, being in clear violation of Article 18(4) of the Police Order, 2002, was patently illegal. Though it may not have the effect of vitiating the trial, it will certainly damage the fairness of A investigation, one of the main objects sought to be achieved by the Police Order, as well as the credibility of the officer blatantly violating the law. Such an officer will be exposing himself to disciplinary action and may also incur the risk of penalty under the Police Order.
4. Out of the four occupants of the car, three, including Buland Khan and Amir Abbasi who had allegedly opened fires upon the police and were captured at the spot, were exonerated. The applicant was not identified by the police at the time of his alleged escape from the scene of offence. He was surety in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupee five hundred thousand) only and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.