MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 6 and 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of two kilograms of Charas from his house. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fled the scene upon the arrival of the raiding party, and the recovery was witnessed solely by police officials. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the recovery and the lack of identification, the petitioner was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court observed that the petitioner was not previously known to the raiding police officials and was never subjected to an identification parade. Furthermore, the record failed to establish that the house where the narcotics were recovered was exclusively owned by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and granted bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade for an accused not previously known to the police entitle the accused to bail?
- Is a case for further inquiry made out under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the ownership of the premises of recovery is not exclusively established?
- Can bail be granted when the recovery of narcotics is witnessed solely by police officials and the accused was not previously known to them?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
- Section 9, Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Petitioner seeks bail after arrest in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,551 of 2007, dated 8-6-2007, under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, Police Station Nawankot, Lahore. The precise allegation against petitioner Muhammad Ilyas is that his house was pointed out by co-accused Sanawar Chhabba and when the raiding party came to his house, he fled away therefrom and left behind Charas weighing two Kilograms.
2. Recovery proceedings were witnessed by the police officials. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was previously known to the police officials who conducted the alleged raid.
3. After his apprehension in this case, he was never put to the identification parade. There is nothing on record to confirm that the house from which the alleged recovery was effected, was exclusively owned by the petitioner. In the afore-referred circumstances, we are of the, prima facie, view that the petitioner has made out a case one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs .5,00,000 (Rupees five lac only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.