EJAZ ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Ejaz Ali against the State before the Sindh High Court, seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics smuggling case. The core legal question was whether the applicant could be connected to the alleged recovery of heroin based solely on the confessional statements of co-accused persons made before the Investigating Officer. The Court held that under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, a confessional statement made to an Investigating Officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used against any person, let alone a co-accused. Consequently, the Court found no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty of the offence. The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing the requisite surety and personal bond. The key principle laid down is that inadmissible confessional statements made to police officers cannot form the basis for withholding bail.
- Is a confessional statement made by a co-accused before an Investigating Officer admissible in evidence against another accused?
- Can bail be granted when the only evidence connecting the accused to the crime is an inadmissible police confession?
- Whether the provisions of Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 bar the use of a confessional statement made to an Investigating Officer?
- Article 38, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
ORDER
1. ' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.---Heard Messrs Muhammad Faisal Sial, Advocate for the applicant and Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi, Special Prosecutor for ANF. The latter, while conceding that there was no evidence, except the confessional statement of co-accused Muhammad. Akram and Gul Mir before the Investigating Officer, to connect the applicant with the commission of the crime has opposed bail.
2. ' According to the prosecution, on 23-2-2008, at 2015 hours, a team of Anti-Narcotic Force, headed by Inspector Mir Badshah, on a spy information, intercepted four passengers, namely, Syed Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Rasheed Tahir, Allandita Saqib and Mst. Samina and their two associates Muhammad Akram and Gul Mir, Inspector and Sub-Inspector respectively of Airport Security Force, just outside the outer gate of the International Lounge of the Jinnah International Airport, Karachi. On checking, the three suitcases which were with the passengers and the two suitcases which were with their associates Muhammad Akram and Gul Mir, 10 kilograms of heroin was recovered from each suitcase. They wanted to smuggle out the heroin to he Malaysia by Flight No,MH-161 of Malaysia Airlines. The four passengers had their air tickets from Karachi to Kuala Lumpur.
3. ' The allegation against the applicant is that he was Deputy Assistant Director in the Airport Security Force and was on duty at the airport on that day and would have helped the passengers in the clearance of their goods. However, in support of the allegation the Investigating Agency could not collect any evidence, except confessional statements of co-accused Muhammad Akram and Gul Mir, who allegedly stated before the Investigating Officer that the applicant was requested by them to help accused Syed Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Rasheed Tahir, Allandita Saqib and Mst.
4. Samina in the clearance of their goods. The learned Special Prosecutor has frankly conceded that, except for the confessional statements of the co-accused before the Investigating Officer, there was no evidence against the applicant.
5. ' According to the Article 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, confessional statement of an accused before an Investigating Officer is inadmissible in evidence. It cannot be used even against its maker not to talk of any other person.
6. ' In view of the above-mentioned facts, circumstances and reasons, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant guilty of the offence and, therefore, the case is fit for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on giving one surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and personal bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.