QEEMAT GUL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Qeemat Gul, seeking post-arrest bail after being denied the same by lower courts in a case registered under sections 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of his apprehension during a narcotics trafficking interception involving a vehicle accident and police encounter. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that three co-accused received firearm injuries and one was killed while the police party remained unhurt, that the petitioner sustained no injuries despite a severe vehicle accident, that no firearm was recovered from him, and that he had been in detention since July 2009. The appeal was consequently allowed and the petitioner granted bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when co-accused sustained injuries in a police encounter but the petitioner remained uninjured despite a serious vehicle accident?
- Does the absence of any firearm recovery from an accused person support the grant of bail in a case involving cross-firing and narcotics recovery?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---After being declined bail by all the courts, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal praying for his release on bail in a case registered under sections 324, 353, 148, 149, P.P.C. Read with section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered on the report of S.H.O. Of Police Station Karak in Police Station Banda Daud Shah, District Karak.
2. The S.H.O. Had alleged that he had prior information about the trafficking of narcotics in a motor car and on the basis of this tip off, he orgamzed a police party. That as per information the motor car came along and was signalled to stop but instead the car speeded away. That he and the police party followed the vehicle and its occupants fired at the police patty, who also returned the fire in self-defence. That after some chase the vehicle went out of control of the driver and met an accident. That three of the occupants of the vehicle Usman Ghani son of Sakhi Marjan, Khalid Usman and one Nasibullah, who was driving the vehicle received injuries and apart from the three, two other persons, Qeemat Gul and Muhammad Abid, who were also co-occupants of the vehicle, were arrested. Usman Ghani, later succumbed to his injuries.
3. The accused, Muhammad Abid, has been admitted to bail by the High Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither the petitioner nor his son was travelling in the car, which is evident from the fact that despite the serious accident of the vehicle they have not suffered a bruise. That the entire police case regarding firing by the accused is false and that whereas three of the accused received firearm injuries none was injured from the police party. The Additional Advocate-General N.-W.F.P., however, argued that the presence of the petitioner at the place at odd hours of the morning with no residences around could not be explained by the petitioner. That a huge quantity of Charas weighing three Maunds was recovered from the vehicle.
5. Three of the accused travelling in the car in question received firearm injuries and one of them was killed. The police party escaped completely unhurt notwithstanding the allegation that they fired in selfdefence Admittedly the vehicle was severely damaged in the accident. It appears that the vehicle went out of control after the driver, Nasibullah, was hit in the firing. Notwithstanding the serious accident the petitioner was not hurt and further no firearm was recovered from him. He has been in detention since July, 2009.
6. In this view of the matter, he is entitled to bail. The petition is therefore, converted into appeal and allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided furnishing of bail bonds of sum of Rs, 500,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.