ABDUR RASOOL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Abdur Rasool against the dismissal of his pre-trial bail by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Narcotics, Shikarpur, in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the alleged recovery of two kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the doubtful nature of the police investigation and an internal police enquiry report indicating foul play and false implication by the complainant/investigating officer. The Sindh High Court held that while contentions regarding the non-association of private mashirs and the complainant acting as the investigating officer did not constitute illegalities under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the departmental enquiry report by the S.P.O. finding the police action malicious brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where an internal police inquiry report points to foul play and false implication by the complainant officer, it creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does a complainant acting as the investigating officer render the investigation illegal?
- Can an internal police inquiry report recommending departmental action against the complainant create a case for further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Whether sending only a portion of the recovered narcotic substance for chemical analysis is fatal to the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM, J.--- This bail application is directed against the order, dated 6-6-2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Narcotics, Shikarpur, in Crime No,70 of 2008 of Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whereby the bail application of the applicant was dismissed.
2. ' Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 15-4-2008 the complainant Inspector Ali Bux Dhakan of Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah along with his subordinate staff during patrolling on a tip-off, ht 1030 hours, apprehended present applicant from the bus stop of village Dodo and recovered two kilograms of Charas in the shape of 73 rods/bars. Ultimately, such F.I.R. Was registered.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the police, despite information well in advance, has failed to associate private Mashirs. He further contended that out of the total two kilograms of Charas, only 110 grams were sent for chemical analysis, therefore, at this stage he can only be held responsible for 110 grams and not the entire property, as such, the offence at the most would be covered by section 9(b) of the C.N.S. Act, which does not attract the bar contained in section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. He further contended that the S.H.O. Ali Bux is the complainant in this case and he has himself acted as Investigating Officer, which casts serious doubt upon the veracity of investigation conducted by him. Lastly, the IA learned counsel contended that the applicant's father, namely Ghulam Rasool had made an application to D.-I.G.P.
4. Larkana against complainant Inspector Ali Bux and others and such enquiry was conducted by S.P.O. Lakhi Ghulam Shah, which proved that the applicant was arrested by S.H.O. Ali Bux and others and on failure of the applicant and his father to pay Rs,50,000 to the S.H.O., the applicant was implicated in this case and it was further recommended by the S.P.O. In his report that departmental action be initiated against Inspector Ali Bux Dhakan and A.S.-I. Muhammad Aslam Soomro. The learned counsel contended that in such circumstances the case against the applicant requires further enquiry.
5. ' The learned State Counsel in the above-stated facts and circumstances has conceded for grant of bail.
6. That regarding the first three grounds urged by the learned counsel for the applicant suffice to say that section 103, Cr.P.C. Is not applicable in the cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act per section 25 of the Act, 1997; reference ca be made to the case of Afzaal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCM R 573 and Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2003 SCM R 1237. That regarding the sample of 110 grams it is no illegality, the trial Court can send the rest of the property for chemical examination on the application of the accused. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Ali Muhammad v. The State 2003 SCM R 54. That regarding the complainant's acting as Investigating Officer in the case, it is also no illegality, reference can be made to the case State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408. However, the report of enquiry, dated 2-9-2008, conducted by an honest officer i.e. S.P.O. Lakhi Ghulam Shah indicates that there is some foul play on the part of complainant Inspector Ali Bux, otherwise, looking to the general attitude and conduct of the local police, an officer from the Police Department and that too posted within the same jurisdiction was not expected to give a negative report against his colleague. The matter in this scenario of facts needs further enquiry, coupled with the circumstances as mentioned in F.I.R. Makes the case, doubtful. The applicant has made out a case of bail. Hence by the following short order, dated 23- 9-2008 applicant was granted bail.
7. "For the reasons to be recorded later on bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court."
8. ' These are the reasons of the above short order.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUDASSIR IQBAL vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 1053
- Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 940