ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE
This matter involves a criminal bail application filed on behalf of the accused, Abdul Majeed, who was detained under FIR No. 18 of 2008 registered under Section 6/9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after 79 heroin-filled capsules were allegedly recovered from his body cavity. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the absence of a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 during the period of detention prior to the recovery. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry, noting that the accused was no longer required for investigative purposes, and accordingly granted bail subject to the furnishing of surety. The key principle laid down is that where a significant delay occurs between initial detention and the alleged recovery of narcotics without a recorded confessional statement during the interim custody, the matter falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a delay between initial arrest and the recovery of narcotics from the body cavity make a case one of further inquiry under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is no longer required by the police for investigative purposes?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when no confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was recorded during pre-recovery detention?
- Section 6/9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.--- This order will dispose of Criminal Bail Application No,516 of 2008 made on behalf of applicant and accused Abdul Majeed who is detained in the case F.I.R. No,18 of 2008 under section 6/9(b) C.N.S. Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Muhammad Ali Society Karachi.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 2-2-2008 the applicant/ accused was intercepted by A.N.F.
3. Police at Karachi Airport, while he was leaving for Dubai. On search of his person as well as articles which he was carrying, nothing incriminating was secured. However, it is alleged that on interrogation of the applicant/accused he admitted that heroin filled capsules were concealed by him in his body cavity. He was detained and on taking X-ray it was confirmed that heroin filled capsules were available on the cavities of his stomach/body. Thereafter, he was admitted in Jinnah Hospital, where capsules numbering 79 were recovered on 6-2-2008, this case against the accused was registered on 2-2-2008, he was detained in custody. On completion of the investigation challan was filed against accused in Court.
4. ' Earlier bail application made on behalf of the applicant before the trial Court was rejected vide order dated 18-4-2008. Hence this second bail application.
5. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as learned Special Prosecutor of A.N.F.
6. Authorities and perused the material available on record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The accused was arrested on 2-2-2008 and it is alleged that capsules of heroin powder were recovered on 6-2-2008. However, during this period no confessional statement of the applicant/accused was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. And so also no recovery was effected from the accused when he was arrested, therefore, the case of the applicant/ accused falls within the ambit of further inquiry. He further contended that punishment provided for the said offence is 7 years and fine, therefore, this case does not fall within purview of section 51 of C.N.S. Act. That the applicant/accused is presently detained in jail custody and is no more required, by the police. Lastly he stated that this is the first time that the applicant/accused is involved in this case. Nothing is available on the record to show that the accused had previously indulged in dealing with the narcotic. He therefore, requested for grant of this bail application and release of accused during pendency of this case.
8. ' Learned Special Prosecutor A.N.F. Has strongly opposed this application and submitted that the applicant/accused was arrested and thereafter 79 heroin filled capsules were recovered from his body. There is nothing on record that the accused is falsely implicated in this case. Furthermore, it is admitted position that report of chemical examiner is positive. The alleged offence committed by applicant/accused is not an offence against an individual but it is an offence against the whole society. He relied on the case reported in 2003 SCM R 573, wherein it was held that, it is no ground for releasing the accused on bail that his case does not falls within the prohibitory clause of section 51 of C.N.S. Act. As the accused is involved in smuggle of heroin, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail at this stage.
9. ' He therefore, requested that bail application may be rejected.
10. ' I have considered the contentions raised at bar and have perused the material available on record.
11. Admittedly accused was arrested on 2-2-2008 and subsequently on 6-2-2008 after four days alleged recovery of 79 capsules of heroin powder were recovered from him. The applicant/accused remained in custody prior to the recovery but during this period on confessional statement of applicant/accused was recorded.
12. ' Thus, I am of the opinion that case of applicant/accused requires further inquiry.
13. Applicant/accused at this stage is no more required by the police for investigation purpose.
14. Therefore, bail to the applicant/ accused Abdul Majeed is granted, he be released on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
Cited by 1 case
- TARIQ MEHMOOD vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 731