Muhammad Noman Munir vs The State and another
The petitioner, Muhammad Noman Munir, sought post-arrest bail after being apprehended by police with 1380 grams of cannabis and 7 grams of heroin. The lower courts had previously denied his bail request. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the absence of public witnesses and the quantity of the narcotics placed the case in a category warranting bail. The Supreme Court examined whether the possession of these narcotics invoked the statutory prohibition against bail and addressed the evidentiary value of police witnesses in the absence of public witnesses. The Court held that the quantity of narcotics fell squarely within the prohibition of Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, thereby barring bail. Regarding the lack of public witnesses, the Court observed that societal apathy often prevents public participation in police operations and affirmed that police functionaries are competent witnesses whose acts are statutorily presumed to be intra vires. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' refusal of bail and declined to grant leave to appeal.
- Does the possession of 1380 grams of cannabis and 7 grams of heroin attract the prohibitory clause of Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Can the absence of public witnesses in a narcotics case be excused by societal apathy?
- Are police functionaries considered competent witnesses whose acts are statutorily presumed to be intra vires in narcotics cases?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Surprised at 12:30 p.m. on 23.1.2020 by a contingent of Police Station Kotwali Sialkot, Muhammad Noman Munir, petitioner herein, was found in possession of cannabis weighed as 1380 grams with a lethal combination of 07 grams of heroin; courts below declined his request for admission to bail.
Submissions at the bar range from absence of a witness from the public to a quantity bordering slightly beyond the volume covered by section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. Heard.
3. 1380 grams of cannabis with 07 grams of heroin squarely fall within the mischief of the section ibid that attracts prohibition embodied in section 51 of the Act ibid and as such the argument being presumptuous is beside the mark. Insofar as non-association of a witness from the public is concerned, people collected at the scene, despite request abstained to assist the law and it is so mentioned in the crime report itself, a usual conduct symptomatic of societal apathy towards civic responsibilities. Even otherwise, the members of the contingent being functionaries of the State are second to none in their status, with their acts statutorily presumed, prima facie, as intra vires. Refusal by the Courts below being well within the remit of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 10 cases
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State 2025 SHC 166
- Ghulam Hussain Versus State 2026 PCrLJ 196
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State 2023 YLR 1264
- KUNWAR SINGH Versus State 2023 YLRN 31
- Shahjahan Lashari S/O Muhammad Essa vs The State 2021 SHC 536
- Bilal S/O Shah Jahan vs The State 2021 SHC 530
- Fahad Nawaz S/O Gul Nawaz vs The State 2021 SHC 500
- Manzoor Ali S/O Maqbool Ahmed vs The State 2021 SHC 534
- Adnan S/O Muhammad Ayoub vs The State 2021 SHC 532
- ZOHAIB AHMED Versus State 2021 YLRN 70