MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs STATE & another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding an FIR involving the transportation of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that no narcotics were recovered from his direct personal possession and he was not apprehended at the scene, despite the Investigating Officer's opinion that he was driving the vehicle used in the crime. The Court held that the ipse dixit of the police is not binding upon the Court and that the Investigating Officer's opinion regarding the petitioner's role remained open to question at trial. Furthermore, observing the rule of consistency, the Court noted that the petitioner's case was indistinguishable from that of his co-accused, who had previously been granted bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the police's unilateral opinion cannot override judicial scrutiny and that consistency in granting bail to similarly situated co-accused is a fundamental principle in the administration of criminal justice.
- Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding an accused's role in a crime binding upon the Court during bail proceedings?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when granting bail to a co-accused in a narcotics case?
- Can bail be granted when no narcotics are recovered from the direct personal possession of the accused?
- 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 FIR No, 1185 registered under Section 9(c) of the CNSA, 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 08.03.2010 in Crim. Misc. 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 FIR 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 PW 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 11.02.2010, by Muhammad Asghar, SI/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 {{URDU EXT}} 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 ipxi-dixit of police is not binding upon Court.
7. We, thus find that his case is not distinguishable from his co-accused Tariq, who has 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 circumstances, 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 sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) with, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.