SHAHZAD alias SAJJAD vs The STATE and others
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 1510 grams of Charas from the petitioner. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the prosecution's claim that he attempted to flee upon seeing the police, which is contradicted by medical evidence indicating the petitioner suffers from bilateral blindness. The High Court held that the prosecution's narrative—that the petitioner attempted to run away and was apprehended after being encircled—became a matter of further inquiry due to the medical report confirming his condition of bilateral blindness/non-viable eyes. Consequently, the court found sufficient grounds to believe that the petitioner's guilt required further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court affirmed that where the prosecution's factual narrative is rendered doubtful by objective medical evidence, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail, regardless of his prior involvement in other cases where no conviction has been secured.
- Does a medical condition rendering the accused physically incapable of committing the alleged act of fleeing from police constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case where the prosecution's narrative of the arrest is contradicted by medical evidence?
- Is the mere involvement in previous criminal cases, without conviction, sufficient to deny bail when the current case requires further inquiry?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, J. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.381/19 dated 11.03.2019 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Sanda, Lahore.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of FIR is that on 11.03.2019 at 09:00 a.m., he was apprehended by the local police on spy information and Charas weighing 1510- gms, wrapped in a shopper bag was recovered from his possession.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it transpired that as per prosecution story , the petitioner on seeing the raiding party tried to run away , but after encircling him, the raiding party managed to arrest him and thereby got recovered the quantity of chars as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the petitioner vigorously conte nded that the story narrated by the prosecution did not ring true, as the petitioner is suffering from blindness from his both eyes since last one year. In order to substantiate his version, he drew the attention of this Court to an application submitted by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore regarding his medical check-up. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore while accepting the application submitted by the petitioner , ordered the Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore to get the petitioner medically examined. In pursuance of order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore, the Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore submitted a report, which is also annexed herewith this petition and the same reads as under:- "In compliance with the orders of the learned Court of Syed Faiz-ul-Hassan, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lahore regarding the medical report of the under -trial prisoner Shahzad son of Muhammad Arif involved in case FIR No.381/19, under section 9-C, Police Station Sanda, Lahore.
It is submitted that I have carefully exam ined the above said under -trial prisoner . He is vitally stable and afebrile with B.P. 120/80 mmHg, Pulse 78/ min anti Temp. 98.6 F. He gives history of blindness but no medical record of his condition is produced. He was complaining of bilateral blindness. He was referred to Services Hospital, Lahore dated 24.05.2019 in OPD where his detailed oral examination was done by consultants. According to their report, he is diagnosed as case of Bilateral blindness / non-viable eyes due to bilateral macular dystrophy and chorioretinal abiotrophy . Necessary symptomatic treatment is being provided to him from the jail hospital.
Report is submitted for kind perusal.
Sd/ MEDICAL OFFICER DISTRICT JAIL, LAHORE".
On perusal of report, it transpired that the petitioner was diagnosed as a case of bilateral blindness/non-viable eyes. So, the prosecution case to the effect that the petitioner was carrying narco tic substance and on seeing the police party , tried to run-away and the raiding party apprehended him while encircling him, had become a matter of further inquiry . In this regard guidance is respectfully sought from dictum laid down in case of Aslam v. The State (2006 YLR 2972 ). As far as the contention of the learned Law Officer that the petitioner is previously involved in six cases of narcotics is concerned, admittedly , he has not been convicted so far in any case.
5. In a sequel to above discussion, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner , calls further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr .P.C.
6. Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.