SHARIFA BIBI vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Sharifa Bibi, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 60 kilograms of charas pukhta from secret cavities of a motorcar in which she was traveling as a passenger. The core legal question was whether a passenger in a vehicle from which a large quantity of narcotics is recovered can be denied bail solely on the basis of being an inmate, without proof of conscious possession or control. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as she was neither the owner of the vehicle nor was any recovery effected from her personal possession, and the driver was in active control of the vehicle. The court emphasized that liberty cannot be curtailed on mere presumption and that reasonable grounds existed for further inquiry into her complicity, thereby confirming the order allowing the petition.
- Whether a passenger can be held to be in conscious possession of narcotics recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle owned and driven by another person?
- Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground of the huge quantity of narcotics recovered from a vehicle in which she was merely riding as an inmate?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, Petitioner Sharifa Bibi seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.48 dated 14-1-2012 registered for offence under section 9(c) CNSA at Police Station Badhber District Peshawar.
2. The local police of Badhber were having information regarding smuggling of narcotics from tribal area to Punjab, thus, believing the same to be true, they laid a picket at the crime spot when in the meanwhile an Alto motorcar Mehran bearing Registration No.LZG-1478 silver color was signalled to stop. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Waris Ali son of Sarang while the petitioner was found seated with him. Search of the motorcar was carried out and from the cover of rear seat 30 packets charas pukhta weighing 1000 grams each packet while from inside the CNG tank 30 packets charas pukhta each packet weighing 1000 grams total 60 Kgs were recovered.
Sample of five grams from each packet was sent to FSL for chemical analysis while rest of the bulk was sealed into separate parcel, hence the case was registered against the accused.
3. Learned counsel .For petitioner contended that the petitioner is neither owner of the car nor anything has been recovered from her personal possession, hence she was wrongly enroped with the alleged crime; that the alleged contraband were recovered from rear seat cover and inside the CNG tank of the motorcar, thus, the petitioner was not in conscious knowledge regarding presence of narcotics in the vehicle. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on judgments reported through 2008 SCM R 1111 and 2009 SCM R 954.
4. As against that learned counsel for State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from the motorcar in which the petitioner was found seated, therefore, there is a strong presumption that she was in league the co-accused.
' Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The record reveals that the petitioner was found as inmate of the motor car but there is no other evidence of any nature to reasonably connect her as an associate of the co-accused. The co- accused, namely, Waris Ali, driver of the motorcar was in active control and domain of the vehicle, who could be tagged with the requisite knowledge. Moreover, the petitioner is neither owner of the motor car nor the recovery has been effected from her personal possession rather the same were allegedly concealed in secret cavities of the vehicle. Further, during personal search, no amount of money was recovered from the petitioner to slightly suggest that she was paid for giving company to the driver (co-accused), thus, in the given circumstances her case is distinguishable from the co-accused because on simple presumption, liberty of a person cannot be curtailed. The case-law cited at bar attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, which was rightly relied upon by learned defence counsel. In view of the above, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the case of petitioner requires further probe.
' This petition was allowed vide short order dated 20-2-2012 and above are reasons for the same.