HAROON KHAN and another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Haroon Khan and Muhammad Saeed, who were charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession and trafficking of 8400 grams of charas recovered from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle they occupied. The Court held that the driver, Haroon Khan, exercised control over the vehicle and thus reasonable grounds existed to believe he committed the offence, bringing his case within the restrictive limbs of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leading to the dismissal of his bail plea. Conversely, regarding the co-accused, Muhammad Saeed, who was a passenger, the Court held that his conscious knowledge of the concealed narcotics remained a matter for the trial court to determine after evidence, thereby establishing a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Muhammad Saeed while dismissing the application of the driver.
- Does the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle justify the denial of bail to the driver of said vehicle?
- Is a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics entitled to bail when their conscious knowledge of the contraband is not immediately apparent?
- When does a case for 'further inquiry' arise in the context of bail applications for narcotics offences?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---On their failure to obtain bail from the fora below, Haroon and one other, the petitioners, who are accused in case FIR No, 355 dated 17.11.2016 under section 9(c), C.N.S.A. Of Police Station, Jarma, Kohat, have come to this Court for their release on bail.
2. The allegation against the accused-petitioners as per FIR, referred to above, are that they were found in possession and trafficking of charas, weighing 8400 grams, in a Car bearing registration No, LX 232/Islamabad.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. It appears from the available record that on 17.11.2016 Abdus Sattar, SHO of Police Station, Jarma, along with police nafri has made nakabandi on main highway near Muslim Abad, when in the meanwhile, a Car bearing registration No LX 232/Islamabad was stopped for the purpose of checking. Two persons were sitting in the Car, who were subjected to a thorough search, but nothing was recovered from their immediate possession, however, the search of the vehicle led to the recovery of charas, weighing 8400 grams.
While going through the record, most particularly, the site plan one could observe that the Car was driving by co-accused Haroon and so far as petitioner-accused Muhammad Saeed is concerned, he was sitting in the front seat of the vehicle. titioner Haroon Khan is concerned, being driver of the vehicle, he was having its full control and, as such, at this stage, he could not be exonerated from the liability.
5. In view of the recovery of charas, weighing 8400 grams, from the vehicle, which was driving by accused-petitioner Haroon Khan, reasonable grounds exists for believing that he has committed an offence, which comes within the restrictive limbs of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And such being the position, the petition for the grant of bail to his extent stands dismissed.
6. So far as petitioner-accused Muhammad Saeed is concerned, as is evident from the record he was sitting in the front seat of the vehicle and to see as to whether he was having conscious knowledge about the concealment of narcotics in the Car in which he was sitting, is the question which is to be determined by the trial Court after recording the evidence.
7. On tentative assessm ent of the available record, scope of further inquiry is there into the guilt of the accused- petitioner Muhammad Saeed and this being so, the petition for the grant of bail to his extent is allowed, and, accordingly, he is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
The petition is partially allowed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Hair Biyar Khan Versus State 2026 MLD 633
- Abdul Ghafoor and another vs The State 2020 P Cr. L J 1512
- ARIF GUL Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 82