DOCTOR KHAN alias QADIR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail after a large quantity of narcotics (Charas and opium) was recovered from secret cavities of a truck. The core legal question is whether an accused can be held liable and denied bail solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused during police interrogation. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was not arrested on the spot, made no confession, led to no recovery, and was implicated only through an inadmissible statement of a co-accused without any supporting direct or circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that a statement made by a co-accused to the police during interrogation is legally inadmissible against another accused and cannot form the sole basis for withholding bail or establishing tentative connection with the crime.
- Is a statement made by a co-accused to the police during interrogation admissible against the accused?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the accused is implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement without any incriminating recovery?
- Does a disclosure statement leading to no recovery constitute sufficient tentative evidence to connect an accused with the crime for the purpose of bail?
' GHULAM MOHYUDDIN MALIK, J.---As per allegations disclosed by Inspector Sardar Abdul Waheed, S.H.O. Police Station, ANF, Peshawar; he was informed by his senior officers that huge quantity of narcotics will be smuggled through truck No, P-4405 from Khyber Agency to Punjab via G.T. Road; that he on receipt of this application arranged raiding party applied picket (Nakabandi) near Kund turn, Khair Abad, G.T. Road; that in the meanwhile at 1200 hours on 13-11-2007 saw the same Truck coming from Peshawar side. It was signaled to stop, on query, the driver disclosed his name Waheedullah son of Muhammad Rehman R/o Dagbasood, Nowshera; that during search of the truck huge quantity of Charas and opium was recovered from the secret cavities of the truck; that after recovery he sent the report in the shape of murasila for registration of the case and seized the above mentioned narcotics.
2. Further it is alleged that during interrogation of accused Waheedullah he disclosed name of Doctor Khan as the owner and actual beneficiary of the narcotics and so in pursuance to this statement the petitioner Doctor Khan has been made as accused in the instant case. Accordingly after his arrest he applied for his release on bail to the Court of learned Judge, Special Court (CNS), Peshawar who vide his order dated 3-4-2008 declined to release him on bail, therefore, the accused/petitioner has come to this Court for the same purpose.
3. I have heard at length arguments of learned defence counsel and Mr. Salahuddin Khan, Deputy Attorney-General and also perused the record.
4. Without commenting upon the merits of the case suffice is to say that the petitioner Doctor Khan was not arrested red handed; that during interrogation neither he confessed the guilt nor led to the recovery of any incriminating articles. He has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of statement of co-accused made to the police which legally speaking is hardly admissible A against the maker what to talk of co-accused. Meaning thereby that there is not an iota of legal direct or circumstantial evidence connecting him with the crime and therefore, by placing reliance on the following authorities, petitioner is found entitled to concession of bail.
' (1) 2001 SCMR Page-14, (2) 2000 SCMR Page-667 and (3) 1999 SCMR Page-1271.
5. As a result petitioner Doctor Khan (alias Qadir) is allowed post arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with two A sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
Cited by 1 case
- JIHAD ALI Versus State 2017 YLRN 36