ABID HUSSAIN vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Abid Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 153 of 2008 registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to the alleged narcotics offence given that he was not apprehended at the spot, was not known to the raiding party, and lacked detailed features in the FIR. The court held that since the petitioner was not arrested on the spot, his identification and vicarious liability for custody of the narcotic substance lying at the spot remain matters for trial, and reasonable grounds do not currently exist to believe he committed the offence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of evidence favoring further inquiry warrants bail in narcotics cases where spot-apprehension and direct identification are absent.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not apprehended at the spot and is not known to the raiding party?
- Does the absence of physical apprehension at the scene constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Whether a petitioner can be vicariously held liable for the custody of narcotic substances lying at the spot at the bail stage?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Abid Hussain son of Muhammad Yar, petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 153/2008, registered at Police Station, Shah Kot District Sahiwal on 15.6.2008 for offence under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. It has been intimated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was known to the raiding party. He also submits that in the FIR the features of the petitioner have not been detailed. He submits that as a matter of fact the petitioner has been implicated in this case to widen the net of implications. He further submits that narcotic substance cannot be said to be in the joint custody of the petitioner and others. It is yet to be decided during the trial as to whether the petitioner can be vicariously held liable for the custody for the narcotic substance which was lying at the spot. At present, reasonable grounds do not exist to believe that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 9-C of the Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Hence, the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of bail.
3. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.