Abdul Ghafoor and another vs The State
This bail application arose from the arrest of two individuals, Abdul Ghafoor and Sher Ahmed, following the recovery of 2 kilograms of Charas and 100 grams of heroin from a vehicle they were occupying. The applicants sought post-arrest bail after the trial court refused their initial request. The core legal question was whether both the driver and the passenger could be held equally liable for the possession of narcotics found in the vehicle. The Court held that the driver, Abdul Ghafoor, could not be absolved of liability as he was in control of the vehicle transporting the contraband, establishing a prima facie case against him, thus denying his bail. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the co-accused, Sher Ahmed, noting that he was merely a passenger and no narcotics were recovered from his exclusive possession, rendering his case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that while a driver is generally liable for contraband found in their vehicle, a passenger without exclusive possession may be entitled to bail pending further inquiry.
- Is the driver of a vehicle liable for narcotics recovered from the vehicle during transit?
- Can a passenger in a vehicle where narcotics are recovered be granted bail on the basis of further inquiry?
- Does the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle create a prima facie case against the driver?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---Applicants Abdul Ghafoor son of Rustam and Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad seek bail in case FIR No. 33 of 2020 dated 23.02.2020 under section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Hub City District Lasbela. They have been refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances Hub vide order dated 04.03.2020; hence; the instant application for the same purpose.
2. As per contents of FIR, the local police of Police Station Hub City, District Lasb ela, during area Gasht received spy information that two persons namely Abdul Ghafoor and Sher Ahmed are doing drug's business in an Alto car bearing No.AUH-691. On the said information the police officials during checking on main RCD road signaled the said vehicle to stop. On inquiry the driver disclosed his name as Abdul Ghafoor while the person sitting next to the driver disclosed his name as Sher Ahmed. Search of the vehicle lead to recovery of 2 kilograms of Charas and 100 grams of heroin powder from beneath the driving seat.
The accused persons were arrested on the spot and the case under the above section of law was registered against them.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned APG and have perused the record available on the case file.
4. Scanning of the record reflects that charas weighing 2 kilograms and heroin weighing 100 grams were recovered from beneath the driving seat of the vehicle, which was being driven by applicant/accused Abdul Ghafoor son of Rustam. It is now settled that driver cannot be absolved from the liability , if contraband are being transported in the vehicle being driven by him. In this beha lf reference may be made to the case reported as Haroon Khan v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 438). Under such circumstances the court normally and ordinarily avoids to grant bail on merit lest it may cause prejudice to the other side. Tentative assessment of the record leads us to the conclusion that there exists a prima-facie non-bailable case against the applicant Abdul Ghafoor son of Rustam. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage and to his extent the instant application is dismissed.
5. So far as the case of applicant/co-accused Sher Ahmed is concerned, after perusal of the record it has been observed by us that when he was arrested by the police he was not driving the car nor any narcotics were recovered from his exclusive possession rather he was sitting on the front seat of the car. In such view of the circumstances the case of the applicant Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad becomes one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Hussain Ullah v The State (2019 SCMR 1651 ). He is behind the bars since 23.02.2020 and nothing is to be recovered from him. In this backdrop, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping him incarcerated for an indefinite period.
6. For what has been discussed above the instant application to the extent of applicant/accused Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad is accepted. Consequently , applicant/accused Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with PR bond of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
It goes without saying that the above obse rvations are tentative in nature for purpose of decision on this application alone, which should not be used for influe ncing the adjudication of the case by any party . Obviously , the trial court has to decide the case upon its own merits after application of judicial mind and independent conscience to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Cited by 1 case
- Hair Biyar Khan Versus State 2026 MLD 633