AURANG ZAIB vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following an alleged recovery of 1521 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's involvement in the narcotics case was genuine or a result of police malice, given that the petitioner's father had filed an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, alleging illegal detention and threats of false implication by the police hours before the FIR was registered. The Court held that the prior filing of the habeas corpus application, which specifically predicted the petitioner's implication in a narcotics case, created significant doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR necessitated further probe and inquiry. The key principle laid down is that when the defense provides credible, contemporaneous evidence of police malice—such as a prior court application predicting the false implication—the prosecution's case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the filing of a habeas corpus application predicting false implication in a narcotics case constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can allegations of police malice, supported by contemporaneous court records, justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the timing of an FIR registration relative to a prior court application relevant to determining the credibility of the prosecution's case for bail purposes?
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 223, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 155-C, Police Order 2002
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No, 263/11 dated 18.4.2011 at Police Station Chehlyak District Multan under Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. Allegedly the petitioner during investigation of case FIR No, 262/11 under Sections 506/353/186 PPC made a disclosure and led to the recovery of heroin weighing 1521 grams from his house.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was roped in the false case bearing FIR No, 165/11 under Sections 223, 224 PPC read with Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002 as the persons responsible for the escape of the accused persons were Fazal Inspector, Saeed Head Constable and Muhammad Iqbal ASI and he disclosed their names to the superior officers so firstly he was involved in ease FIR No, 262/11 under Sections 186, 353, 506 PPC and then in the instant case. It is urged that in an application under Section 491 Cr.P.C. his father had categorically mentioned on 18.4.2011 during Court hours that the police officers have kept him under illegal detention at some unknown place and the SHO has given a threat that the petitioner would be involved in a case of heinous nature under Control of Narcotic Substances Act. It is urged that this application was moved before 3-00 p.m. in any case, whereas the instant case was registered on the same day at about 8.15 p.m. so the malice is apparent on face of record. It is urged that this contention is also verified from the fact that after grant of bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge he appeared before the SHO to join the investigation of the case but he was roped in case FIR No, 262/11.
4. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the petitioner has facilitated the narcotics dealers responsible for smuggling of huge quantity of chars so case FIR 165/11 was registered against him but when he appeared in the Police Station, he extended threats to the police employees and also grappled with Constable Ghulam Hussain.
5. Order dated 18.4.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Multan shows that the Bailiff was deputed by the Court to recover the detenue so this application must have been filed during Court hours. In the said application, it was specifically alleged by the father of the petitioner that he went to the Police Station to join the investigation of Case No, 165/11 but as he wanted to disclose the names of the actual culprits responsible for escape of the accused persons he was kept under illegal detention and the SHO extended a threat that he would be involved in a case of heinous nature under Control of Narcotics Substance Act if any officer was named. The father of the petitioner would have no knowledge about the registration of the case at that time so his allegation cannot be ignored. This fact alone is sufficient to 4 conclude that the case against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry and his involvement in the commission of the offence appears to be doubtful.
6. For the reasons supra the petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.