ABDUL MANAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Mannan, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 following the recovery of 132 kilograms of Charas from a vehicle he was driving. The applicant sought bail primarily on the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused had been granted bail, and argued that the prosecution failed to take samples from all recovered rods of contraband. The State opposed the application, distinguishing the applicant's role as the driver of the vehicle and asserting that he had knowledge of the hidden narcotics. The Court held that the applicant's role was distinguishable from that of the co-accused, thereby rendering the rule of consistency inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court determined that the issue regarding the sampling procedure was a matter for trial and did not warrant the grant of bail, especially given the substantial quantity of narcotics recovered. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, finding no grounds for relief.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to a co-accused if their role in the commission of the offense is distinguishable?
- Is the failure to take samples from every individual unit of recovered contraband a sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
- Does the driver of a vehicle containing a large quantity of narcotics bear a presumption of knowledge regarding the contraband?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---This bail application has been filed on behalf of Applicant Abdul Mannan, who was arrested by the Excise Police in case F.I.R. No.01/2007, under sections 6/9-C, CNS Act 1997, PS Excise (PIB) Sindh Karachi on 2-2-2007.
2. ' Allegation against the applicant is that on 2-2-2007 he was apprehended by Nisar Ahmed, Excise Inspector of Provincial Intelligence Bureau, Sindh Karachi while he was driving Toyota car No.V- 4077. Another accused namely Muhammad Ismail was sitting with him on the adjacent seat. Upon searching the vehicle, from the concealed cavities under the dashboard of the vehicle 132 Kgs of Charas was recovered in the shape of rods. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused Muhammad Ismail has been granted bail by this Court in Bail Application No.51 of 2008 by order dated 30-1-2008 therefore, on the rule of consistency this applicant is also entitled to the grant of bail.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length who has also taken additional grounds that the samples were not taken from all 136 rods recovered from the vehicle, but it has only been taken from five rods. He has relied upon a case reported in PLD 2004 SC Page 856 wherein in the similar circumstances the accused facing conviction and sentence of life imprisonment was acquitted. He has also relied upon 2000 MLD Page 117, 1999 MLD Page 453, 1989 PCr.L.J. Page 2456, 2007 PCr.L.J. Page 89, unreported Bail Application No.40 of 2008 of Karachi High Court, 1979 SCMR Page 9, 2007 YLR 2742. Most of the authorities produced by the learned Advocate are on the point of consistency.
4. ' The learned counsel for the State Syed Muhammad Ali Mirza has vehemently opposed this bail application and has stated that the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of co- accused who has been granted bail. The present applicant was driving the vehicle. He was sitting on the driver's seat and strong presumption is that he had the knowledge of hidden contents of Charas in the vehicle. The learned State counsel has posed a question that the Applicant has not shown any where during investigation his purpose of visit to Karachi as to why was he coming to Karachi and that also in an expensive car. There can be no other purpose except to transport the Charas. The rule of consistency is not available to the present applicant. The second point regarding taking of samples from five rods and not from the entire quantity may be a good ground for trial, but is not attracted for the purpose of bail. Accused has not taken the plea that the remaining rods which were recovered from the vehicle were not Charas, while the prosecution has presumed the same as Charas and have ceased it.
5. I have heard both the counsel and have perused the law cited at bar as well as order passed by this Court in Bail Application No.51 of 2008. I am in agreement with the learned State counsel that the role assigned to the present applicant in this case is distinguishable from that of the co- accused, who has been granted bail by this Court and as such this accused cannot claim benefit of bail on the rule of consistency. I am also in agreement with the learned State counsel that taking samples from A a few rods and leaving the some cannot help the accused at bail stage, as the recovered contraband is available with the Investigating Officer. No enmity has been shown with the Excise police for false implication of the accused. A huge quantity of the Charas has been recovered and as such applicant is not entitled for bail. His bail application is rejected.