LATIF KHAN vs STATE
The petitioner, Latif Khan, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 4000 grams of Charas from a shop. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the prosecution's failure to establish a nexus between the accused and the premises where the contraband was recovered, and the delay in submitting the challan. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce revenue records or witness statements to substantiate the petitioner's ownership or possession of the shop. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation was complete and the accused was no longer required for further inquiry. Holding that the question of ownership required determination through evidence at trial, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration was not justified when the prosecution's case regarding the nexus between the accused and the recovered narcotics remained unproven at the pre-trial stage.
- Is bail grantable when the prosecution fails to establish a nexus between the accused and the premises from which narcotics were recovered?
- Does the absence of revenue records or witness statements linking an accused to a shop justify the grant of bail in a narcotics case?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
Having been involved in case FIR No, 562 dated .6.6.2011 registered u/S. 9 (c) CNSA 1997 at PS Tangi the petitioner seeks bail through this application.
2. Briefly the contents of the FIR are that Ishan Shah SHO under the supervision of Shahid Khan and Sardar Bahader Khan DSPs and the other police staff raided the shop of Latif son of unknown resident of Para Chinar and during search of Almirah took into possession 4 packets of Charas weighing 4000 grams.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery whatsoever was effected from the accused-petitioner and that it has not been proved by the prosecution that the shop in question wherefrom Charas was recovered belongs to the accused-petitioner and she further contended that the accused is behind the bars since 8.7.2011 and complete challan has not been submitted before the Court.
4. On the other hand Miss Sabiha Iqbal learned State .counsel opposed the grant of bail contending that a huge quantity was recovered from the shop owned by the accused-petitioner and that the challan is complete and the trial is likely to commence within a short period.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no evidence on record to show that the shop in question wherefrom the recovery of Charas was made belongs to the accused. Neither any revenue record was obtained nor the statement of any co-villager was recorded by the I.O. so as to prove that the shop in question wherefrom the recovery of charas was made belongs to the accused-petitioner. Moreover, the accused was arrested on 8.7.2011 but even then till now the challan has not been submitted in the Court. It is yet to be determined after adducing evidence at trial as to whether the accused was the actual owner of the shop wherefrom Charas in question was recovered. As investigation in the case is complete and the accused is no more required for further investigation. Hence Without going deep into the merits of the case I allow this application and grant bail to the accused- petitioner provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2 lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.