PIR BUX and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants, who were arrested for the alleged possession of 1015 grams of Charas while travelling in a passenger bus, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the evidentiary inconsistencies raised by the defense. The court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, determining that their case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court established the key principle that, notwithstanding the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, police officials are still reasonably required to associate private persons during searches and recoveries, especially when such persons are readily available. This practice is essential to lend credibility to police actions and restore public confidence. The court emphasized that this requirement should not be ignored indiscriminately, and the failure to do so, combined with evidentiary doubts, justified granting bail.
- Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases relieve police officials from the requirement to associate private witnesses during recoveries?
- Is the failure to associate private witnesses during a narcotics recovery a valid ground for granting bail on the basis of further inquiry?
- Does the existence of evidentiary inconsistencies in witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a case for further inquiry?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---The applicants were arrested by the police on the accusation that each of them was found in possession of 1015 grams of Charas while they were travelling in a passenger bus as per the report lodged by S.I.P. Zafar Ali on behalf of the State under section 9(c)
2. Control of Narcotic Substances Act vide Crime No, 06/07 lodged at Police Station Dhabeji, District Thatta on 31-1-2007.
3. ' Inter alia, the bail is pressed on the grounds that the applicants have been falsely implicated, that in spite of the fact that the applicants were arrested while travelling in a bus in which a number of private persons were available but none of them was associated for the recovery, that a doubt was created after reading 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W. Ghulam Mustafa.
4. ' Learned A.A..G. Has not been able to reconcile the apparent mistake in the statement of P.W.
5. Ghulam Mustafa and states that the case of the applicants calls for further enquiry.
6. ' The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
7. ' It must be stated that notwithstanding the bar contained under section 25 of the C.N.S. Act, 1997, thereby excluding the applicability of section 103 Cr.P.C. To Narcotics cases, the officials making searches, recoveries and arrests, are reasonably required to associate private persons, more particularly in those cases in which presence of private persons is admitted so as to lend credence to such actions, and to restore public confidence. This aspect of the matter must not be lost sight of indiscriminately and without exception. Besides that, without making any observations on the language of statement of P.W. Ghulam Mustafa recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. As the same may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, it can be said with certainty that a case for further inquiry has been made out.
8. ' In the circumstances, the applicants are granted bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 4 cases
- JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANU vs The STATE 2018 YLR 190
- MUNEER vs The STATE 2014 MLD 723
- INAYATULLAH and another vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 398
- NAZEER AHMED vs THE STATE 2009 PLD Karachi 191