Muhammad Wakeel vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Wakeel, who was charged with the possession of 3 kilograms and 750 grams of charas. The prosecution alleged that the accused was apprehended by the Assistant Jail Superintendent while transporting the contraband on a tractor-trolley entering the jail premises. The core legal questions were whether the recovery was reliable given that the complainant (a jail official) performed the arrest and recovery himself rather than involving police, and whether the nineteen-day delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis, without explanation, warranted the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case required further inquiry due to the procedural irregularities, specifically the unexplained delay in chemical analysis and the questionable circumstances of the recovery by jail staff rather than police. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that significant, unexplained delays in the chemical analysis of recovered narcotics, combined with procedural irregularities in the recovery process, create sufficient doubt to entitle an accused to the benefit of further inquiry under the bail provisions.
- Does an unexplained delay of nineteen days in sending narcotics samples for chemical analysis entitle an accused to the benefit of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Can a jail official, rather than a police officer, lawfully conduct the investigation and recovery of narcotics from an accused?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain the circumstances of an arrest and recovery create sufficient doubt to justify the grant of bail?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
1. ORDERDR. QAMARUDDIN BOHRA, J. - The prosecution story is that on 7.12,2007 complainant Nisar Ahmed Memon, Assistant Jail Superintendent who' lodged the F.I.R, subsequently alleged that he received spy information that the bricks which were being brought in jail for construction of mosque, one person working as a labour brings Charas in the plastic bag on tractor trolley, therefore, at about 10,00?. m. He noticed one person sitting on trolley which was loaded with bricks and he was having plastic bag in his hand. The trolley was stopped and he was apprehended alongwith the plastic bag while tractor driver decamped away. Then the apprehended person (applicant) was brought before Sikandar Ali Jakhrani, Deputy Superintendent Jail and in his presence plastic bag was opened which contained four packets of charas wrapped in plastic which were weighed 3 Kilo and 750 grams charas and then S.I.P.. Send the quantity to the chemical analysis and the report is in positive. The applicant moved bail application before the Special Judge for'C.N.S., Larkana who vide his order dated?. 5.2008 rejected the same. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the F.I.R, is lodged after delay of six hours. The alleged quantity was sent by S.I.P, for chemical analysis after 19 days without any explanation which created doubt.
2. The learned State counsel opposed the 4)ail application on the ground that the report of chemical analyser is positive.
3. It is case of prosecution that applicant/accused was apprehended form the trolley which was brought by another person alongwith bricks for construction of mosque in jail- and then on spy information he apprehended the applicant and recovered the alleged quantity but it is nowhere given any reason that how the driver run away from the jail. Moreover, the very Assistant Superintendent Jail who had spy information then he would have called the concerned S.I.P, for apprehension.Of the accused and recovery and so on. But in the instant case admittedly the applicant/accused is apprehended by the Assistant Jail Superintendent who effected the alleged recovery also prepared the mashirnama and the mashirs are also jail staff though the labours were available for constructing the mosque. The another question is whether he was competent to perform the function of the investigation which otherwise was required by the concerned police.
4. Admittedly, the quantity was first stated to be recovered by the Assistant Jail Superintendent and then it was handed over to concerned S.I.P, who after keeping for 19 days with him sent for the chemical analysis without any explanation regarding the delay in sending the same to the chemical analyzer. All this made the case of applicant/accused of further enquiry. He is admitted on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.