MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs The STATE
This criminal bail application arises from the dismissal of the applicant's bail plea by the trial court in a case involving the alleged possession and manufacturing of narcotics. The applicant, Muhammad Altaf, was arrested at a flat where, according to the prosecution, 1100 grams of heroin were recovered from his possession, alongside various chemicals used for manufacturing narcotics. The applicant contended that the case was fabricated, arguing that the circumstances of his arrest were implausible and that he was a mere passerby. He further sought bail on the rule of consistency, citing the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Court, however, found that the prosecution's case was supported by the recovery of contraband from the applicant's possession, corroborated by statements from local residents and the landlord who had rented the flat to the applicant. The Court distinguished the applicant's case from that of the co-accused, noting that the co-accused was not arrested at the scene nor was any contraband recovered from him. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the rule of consistency was inapplicable.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when the circumstances of the applicant's arrest differ significantly from those of a co-accused who was granted bail?
- Is the recovery of contraband from the possession of an accused at the scene of the crime sufficient to deny bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case is supported by corroborated statements from witnesses and chemical examiner reports?
- Section 6, Anti-Narcotics Control Act 1997
- Section 9(c), Anti-Narcotics Control Act 1997
- Section 11, Anti-Narcotics Control Act 1997
- Section 15, Anti-Narcotics Control Act 1997
- Section 16, Anti-Narcotics Control Act 1997
- Section 34, Anti-Narcotics Control Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , J.---Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. Through this application, the applicant seeks bail in F.I.R.
No,559 of 2012, Police Station Darakhshan, under sections 6/9(c)/11/ 15/16/34 of Anti Narcotic Control Act, lodged by complainant A.S.-I. Muhammad Naim Awan on 24-11-2012, when he was in Bukhari Commercial Area in connection with some investigation he heard slight explosion and smell :coming out of flat situated at 4th Floor, Bukhari Commercial Area Lane No,7, Building No,23-C, he informed the higher authorities and reached at spot where one Humayoon Usman told him that three persons who were residing at 4th Floor have escaped in Car No, 727 Toyota Corolla, Black Colour while one of their companion is available in the flat. The complainant also informed the Bomb Disposal Squad, they came and searched the flat checked some chemical cans and declared that the same are not explosive substances. Meanwhile a person came out from bathroom having one bag hanging on his shoulder containing 1100 grams heroin, he disclosed his name to be Muhammad Altaf and the names of his companions to be Ali Asghar, Mansoor and Hameed Irani. Thereafter the complainant came at police station and lodged the F.I.R.
' The bail application was moved before the trial Court, the same was dismissed.
' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the case is false and fabricated, it does not appeal to a prudent mind that after explosion three persons escaped away and one remained inside the flat. Learned counsel has further contended that it also does not appeal to a prudent mind that a person came out from bath room having one bag hanging on his shoulders containing 1100 grams heroin. Learned counsel has further contended that actual culprits after the alleged incident escaped away, however, the police arrested the present applicant, who was passerby, only to show their efficiency. Learned counsel has also contended that co-accused Umeed has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18-2-2013, as such under the rule of consistency the present applicant is also entitled to the same concession.
' Learned A.P.-G. Has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that present applicant was arrested at spot and 1100 grams heroin was recovered from his possession, the same was sent to the chemical examiner and report is in positive. Learned A.P.-G. Has further contended that other articles seized from the place of incident were also sent for the chemical examination, as per chemical examiner's report the item Nos.10 and 11 were containing cocaine. All the articles and chemicals recovered from flat were used for preparing the heroin.
Per prosecution, the case against the applicant is that he was apprehended from inside the flat on information of one Humayoon Usman, at the time of his arrest 1100 grams heroin was recovered from his possession. Humayoon Usma n in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has stated that on his information the police came there and arrested the applicant. It is further case of prosecution, that at the time of incident chemical drums and cans used in manufacturing heroin powder A were also recovered. All the persons of locality in their statements before the investigating officer have supported the recovery of chemical and other articles. As per prosecution case the flat used for manufacturing the heroin powder was hired by applicant Muhammad Altaf from one Qamar Shamim, who in his statement before the investigating officer has corroborated the prosecution version. As per prosecution the entire quantity of contraband recovered from the applicant was sent to chemical examiner who opined the same to be heroin powder. The recovery of heroin powder and chemical used for manufacturing the heroin powder is supported by the habitants of building, which is sufficient evidence to connect the applicant in this case. The case of co-accused Umeed was different from the case of present applicant as neither co-accused Umeed was arrested at the spot, nor heroin or other chemicals were recovered from his possession. As such the rule of consistency will not apply to the case of present applicant. The observations are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party.
' The criminal bail application is dismissed.