Zamin vs State
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner Zamin seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 4000 grams of chars from a room and 50 grams of ice from his personal possession. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the joint habitation of the house, lack of public witnesses, and multiple similar FIRs registered on the same day. The Peshawar High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, noting that the house appeared to be joint, no public witnesses corroborated the recovery, and other accused persons in similar cases registered on the same day had already been granted bail. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage can be extended to an accused person, especially where investigation is complete and the petitioner is no longer required for further interrogation.
- Whether the recovery of narcotics from a joint house makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
- Whether registration of multiple similar FIRs on the same day by the police affects the tentative assessment of the prosecution's case for bail?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
On his failure to get the concession of bail from the forum below , the petitione r Zamin son of Hazrat, who is involved in case FIR o. 347 dated 28.9.2019 u/S. 9(c) CNSA of Police Station, Mandani, charsadda, has come to this Court for his release on bail.
2. The case of prosecution, as per contents of FIR, is that there as a complaint that Zamin, the present petitioner , was dealing with argotic business at his home, hence, in the backdrop, SHO, Police Station, Mandan, alongwith other police contingent, after obtaining Search warrant from the Court, raided house of the petitioner on 3.9.2019 at 11.20 hours and he was overpowered. During search of his residential room, the police recovered four packets of chars, lying beneath the `charpai' (bedstead), wrapped in daterkhwan' (buffet), total weighing 4000 grams, and 50 grams 'ice' from his personal possession, and, as such, the instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the house from which the alleged stuff is shown to have been effected is joint one, Therefore, the petitioner cannot exclusively be saddled for the Commission of offence. He argued that neither the recovery of chars has been effected from personal possession of the petitioner nor on his pointation. He argued that it is a false and concocted story as, according to him, prior to registration of the instant case, eight persons, including the petition er, were taken into custody by the police from village Harichand on the pretext of having been involved in terrorist activities and after confining them in illegal custody for two days, they were shown booked in false cases vide FIR No. 344,345, (347 present FIR), 348 and 349, wherein all the accused have been released on bail by this Court, therefore, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and is entitled to be released on bail.
4. As against that, learned AAG representing the State argued that huge quantity of narcotic has been recovered from the house of petitioner and he was also arrested red-handed on the spot, therefore, is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through record of the case.
6. Perusal of the record would reveal that no public complaint or statement is available on record so as to validate version of the seizing officer set forth in the FIR. There is also nothing on record which could show that as to whether in the subject house only petitioner was residing or it was combined one. The recovery of 4000 grams chars has admittedly been recovered from the room and only 5 grams ice is show n to have been recovered from his immediate possession. A part from the above, besides registration of the instant FIR, on the same day, in the same Police Station other FIRs bearing No. 344, 345, 348 and 349 were registered regarding same nature cases with a little bit time difference, wherein all the accused have been released on bail by this Court, also pinching a prudent mind and leading the case of petitioner to further inquiry into his guilt. It is settled principle of law that benefit of doubt if any can be extended to the accused, at bail stage as ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by the mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him but damage to an innocent person caused by arresting him, though ultimately acquitted, would be always beyond repair . Moreover , investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation/interrogation.
7. In view of the above, the petition for the grant of bail is allowed, resultantly , the accused-petitioners is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate/MOD, who shall ensure that the sureties are local reliable and men of means.
Above are the reasons of short order of even date.