LATIF KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the petitioner Latif Khan seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 562 dated 6-6-2011 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Tangi, following the alleged recovery of 4000 grams of Charas from a shop. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when ownership of the premises from where the narcotics were recovered is unverified during investigation and submission of challan is delayed. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as there is no evidence on record, such as revenue records or statements of co-villagers, linking the petitioner to the ownership of the shop, and the investigation is complete while the challan has not been submitted. The key principle laid down is that where ownership of the place of recovery is doubtful and yet to be determined at trial, and the accused is no longer required for investigation, further detention is unwarranted, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the ownership of the shop from where narcotics were recovered remains unverified by revenue records or witness statements?
- Does the absence of a submitted challan despite the completion of investigation justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted in a case involving a prohibitory clause of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when reasonable grounds appear for further inquiry into the accused's connection with the crime?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' FAZL-I-HAQ ABBASI, J.---Having been involved in case F.I.R. No,562 dated 6-6-2011 registered under section 9(c) C.N.S.A. 1997 at Police Station Tangi the petitioner seeks bail through this application.
2. Briefly the contents of the F.I.R. Are that Ishan Shah S.H.O. Under the supervision of Shahid Khan and Sardar Bahader Khan D. S. Ps. 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.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDULLAH vs The STATE 2019 YLR 1876