AMANULLAH vs STATE
This matter concerns two bail petitions filed by the driver and conductor of a vehicle, who were arrested following the recovery of 3700 grams of charas from the vehicle's luggage compartment (diggi) by police acting on spy information. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the evidence. The court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry, as the recovery from a public transport vehicle's luggage compartment raised questions regarding the specific knowledge and culpability of the driver and conductor versus passengers, and the evidentiary value of alleged extra-judicial confessions required trial scrutiny. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the timing of the occurrence and the FIR registration. Consequently, the court granted bail to both petitioners, establishing the principle that where the connection between the accused and the contraband recovered from a public vehicle is not prima facie established, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.
- Does the recovery of contraband from the luggage compartment of a public transport vehicle automatically establish the guilt of the driver and conductor for the purpose of bail?
- Is a case of narcotic recovery considered a matter of further inquiry when the connection between the accused and the contraband is not prima facie established?
- What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession made to police at the bail stage?
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
This order is directed to dispose of two bail petitions Bearing No, 51-D/2012 filed by Amanullah son of Mir Aadat Khan and Bail Petition No, 52/2012 filed by Alamzeb son of Jehangir Khan, because both these petitions are the outcome of one and the same occurrence vide FIR No, 30 dated 20/2/2012 of Police Station Yarik, District D.I. Khan, registered under Section 9 CNSA.
2. According to the First Information Report lodged by Tariq Salim Khan SHO of Police Station Yarik.
District D.I. Khan, on receipt of spy information that the driver and conductor of Coaster No, 3575/LWC were to smuggle charas therein, he alongwith police party had made nakabandi on Chunda Check Post, Dera-Bannu road. At about 2000 hours, the said Coaster arrived from Peshawar side which was stopped and after making hectic efforts, six packets of charas were found in secret cavities of its `diggi' weighing 3700 grams. On inquiry, its driver and conductor disclosed their names as Alamzeb Khan son of Jehangir Khan and Amanullah son of Mir Aadat Khan respectively. They were thus apprehended on the spot and booked for the offence vide FIR ibid.
3. Learned counsel for both the accused/petitioners argued that they are innocent and falsely roped in the instant case; that nothing was recovered from their physical possession; that despite prior information, no efforts were made to associate any private witness to the search of the vehicle; that the ownership of the alleged recovered contraband charas is yet to be ascertained; that despite the police custody, no judicial confession has been made by the accused/petitioners; that the alleged admission of the accused/petitioners before the police has no evidentiary value in the eye of law and thus all these things make it a case of further Inquiry.
4. The learned State counsel opposed both the bail petitions on the grounds that the recovery of the contraband charas was made from the `diggi' of the coaster which was well within the knowledge of the accused/petitioners; that after their arrest, the accused/petitioners have admitted the ownership of the recovered contraband charas and that there was no mala fide on the part of the police to falsely involve them in the case in hand.
5. I have carefully gone through the entire record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments of, the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record shows that it was on spy information to the police that they intercepted/stopped the coaster coming from Peshawar to D.I. Khan and affected the alleged recovery of 3700 grams of contraband charas from the Secret cavities of its `diggi'. It needs no reiteration that the `diggi' of the coaster is meant for keeping luggage of the passengers travelling in the coaster and especially when it was coming all the way from Peshawar to D.I. Khan. Strangely enough, both the timing of occurrence and that of the report are one and the same despite the fact that the Police Station concerned is at a distance of 16/17 kilometers from the spot. At the bail age, the Court has to take a bird's eye view or tentative account of the materials available or record. Whether it was the act of one of the petitioners, or of both, or of some of the passenger travelling in the coaster are the questions which can best be resolved during trial. As far as the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused/petitioners is concerned, the same too, is subject to scrutiny during trial. Thus, prima facie, the case squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry entitling both the accused/petitioners to the concession of bail.
7. The application is, therefore, accepted and both the accused/petitioners are admitted to bail provided each of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.