MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner Muhammad Tufail sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 1185 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on merits and on the rule of consistency given that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that no one was apprehended from the car used for transporting narcotics, nothing was recovered from the petitioner's direct personal possession, and the investigating officer's opinion in the case diary regarding the petitioner driving the car was open to question at trial as the ipse dixit of police is not binding upon the court. The court decided to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail, applying the rule of consistency with his co-accused and noting his period of incarceration and previous non-convict status. The key principles laid down are that the ipse dixit of the police during investigation is not binding on courts, and that the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused's case is indistinguishable.
- Whether the ipse dixit of a police officer in a case diary is binding upon the court during bail adjudication?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when granting post-arrest bail to an accused whose case is indistinguishable from a co-accused already granted bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when no narcotics are recovered from his direct personal possession and he is not apprehended from the crime vehicle?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' Muhammad Tufail petitioner by way of the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 1185 registered under section 9(c) of the C.N.S.A., 1997 with Police Station, Factory Area, Lahore on 11- 10-2009.
2. The facts of the case were recorded by us in our earlier order dated 8-3-2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2140-B of 2010 of his co-accused Muhammad Tariq. We, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that it is clear from the narration of the F.I.R. That no one was apprehended from the car being used for the transportation of the narcotics. It is also clear from the same that there were many persons in the car, when it was intercepted by the police party at the picket point.
4. There is no statement of any P.W. That he was found on the driving seat of that car. It is also every body's case that nothing was recovered from his direct personal possession.
5. It may be mentioned here that the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has submitted before us that as per the Case Diary No, 18, recorded on 11-2-2010, by Muhammad Asghar, S.-I./I.O. In the investigation, it has been found that in fact he was driving the car and was the associate of Farooq @ Farooqi, the main person in the crime. He has also admitted that such is the opinion of the said investigating officer. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has read out before us the said case diary. It starts like this that during his such position has come to the surface. Such opinion of the investigating officer is open to question to be seen at trial.
6. However, it would be relevant to mention here that it is well-settled proposition in criminal- administration of justice that ipse dixit of police is not binding upon court.
7. We, thus find that his case is notice distinguishable from his co-accused Tariq, who has been granted bail by this Court vide the aforesaid order. The rule of consistency, thus also comes into play in his case.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars since 16.10.2009 and a previous non-convict. We, therefore, in such curcumstances find it an appropriate case to release him on bail. In this view of the matter, we accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sim of Rs.5,00,000 ( Rupees five hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
Cited by 1 case
- Mir IFTIKHAR AHMED vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 235