Jan Muhammad vs The State
The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being charged with the possession of 1250 grams of charas, following the refusal of bail by the Special Court for Narcotics. The applicant contended innocence, alleging false implication by the police, a lack of independent witnesses, and a significant delay in the chemical examination of the case property. The State opposed the application, arguing the offence negatively impacts society at large. Upon review, the Court observed that the investigation was complete, the applicant had been in custody for over two months without effective trial progress, and there was no risk of evidence tampering. Consequently, the Court held that a case for further inquiry was established. The applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing a surety bond. The judgment reinforces the principle that where investigation is complete and trial progress is stagnant, the absence of independent witnesses and lack of risk regarding evidence tampering justify the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics case justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the completion of investigation and lack of trial progress a valid ground for granting bail?
- Can bail be granted where there is no apprehension of evidence tampering by the accused?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that on arrest from the applic ant was secured 1250 grams of charas by police party of P.S Excise Umerkot led by ETI Shahmir Khan Samoon, for that he was booked in the present case.
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned Judge Special Court for Narcotics Umerkot has sought for the same from this court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police; there is no independent witness to the incident and case property has been subjected to chemical examination with considerable delay . By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail on the point of further inquiry .
4. Learned A.P.G for the State has opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that the offence which the applicant has allegedly committed is af fecting the society at large.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. There is no independent witness to the incident. The investigation of the case is over and the applicant is in custody since more than two months without effective progress in trial. There is no apprehension of the tempering with the evidence on the part of the applicant. In these circumstances, a case for release of the applicant on bail on point of further inquiry obviously is made out.
7. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.50,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The instant application is disposed of accordingly .