SHAMSUR REHMAN alias SHAMSAY vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Shamsur Rehman alias Shamsay, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 9 kilograms of Charas from a vehicle. The petitioner sought bail after the Additional Sessions Judge refused his initial application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery. The Court held that the recovery was not made from the immediate personal possession of the petitioner, as he had fled the scene upon the arrival of the police. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to clarify who was driving the vehicle or why the driver was not apprehended, raising doubts about the petitioner's direct involvement. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. The key principle established is that where recovery is not from the immediate possession of an accused and the prosecution's narrative regarding the circumstances of the incident is ambiguous, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the recovery of contraband from a vehicle, where the accused was a passenger but fled the scene, constitute immediate possession sufficient to deny bail?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution fails to identify or apprehend the driver of a vehicle from which narcotics were recovered?
- Should bail be granted when the prosecution's case lacks independent evidence regarding the accused's direct possession of the recovered contraband?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' SHAH JEHAN KHAN, J.--- Shamsur Rehman alias Shamsay accused-petitioner who is under arrest in case under section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Urmar District Peshawar vide F.I.R No,147, dated 1-5-2007, was refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Peshawar vide his order, dated 30-8-2007. Now the petitioner has approached this Court for the said relief.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 1-5-2007 at 1530 hours Syed Manzoor Ali Shah S.H.O P.S. Urmar along with other police contingent during the raid at village Urmar Payan received information that narcotics dealer Shamsur Rehman alias Shamsay, who was wanted to the police in case F.I.R No,236 dated 26-9-2006, F.I.R No,18, dated 13-1-2007 and F.I.R No,72 dated 20-3-2007,- is selling Charas in the Datsun bearing Registration No,9045-M/N.-W.F.P. On the pointation of the informer, the said Datsun in which the said Proclaimed Offender was sitting in the front seat was signaled to stop but on seeing the police party, he escaped from the spot. On searching the said Datsun the police recovered Charas weighing 9 kilograms from beneath the front seat. The S.H.O took into possession the above vehicle along with scales. Out of the recovered contraband Charas, ten grams were separated for analysis through F.S.L. While the remaining stuff was sealed into separate parcel.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record of the case.
4. Without going into deep merits of the case, suffice it to say that the alleged recovery of the contraband Charas was effected from the Datsun in the broad day light but the accused- petitioner, who is stated to be dealing with narcotics, fled away on seeing the police party. Since the recovery was not effected from the immediate possession of the petitioner and the allegation against him is not supported through an independent evidence. Though the petitioner was allegedly seated on the front seat of the vehicle, but who was driving the vehicle, is not clear from the contents of the F.I.R and if some driver was seated on the 'driver seat why he was not taken into custody. In these circumstances the case of the accused-petitioner is that of further inquiry.
5. Resultantly, this bail application is accepted and the accused-petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate. The above are the reasons of my short order announced on 12-10-2007.
Cited by 1 case
- ARZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 272