Gul Manan vs The State
This criminal petition challenges the Peshawar High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a narcotics case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was a passenger and not the driver of the vehicle from which narcotics were recovered, could be held to have conscious knowledge of the contraband, thereby disentitling him to bail. The Supreme Court observed that the narcotics were recovered from secret cavities, and the State conceded that nothing was recovered from the petitioner's personal possession or on his pointation. The Court held that the petitioner's mere presence in the vehicle did not conclusively establish conscious knowledge, and the issue required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where there is no evidence of personal possession or pointation, the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics constitutes a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics establish conscious knowledge of the contraband?
- When does a case of narcotics recovery fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a passenger in a vehicle entitled to bail when narcotics are recovered from secret cavities and not from the passenger's personal possession?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Impugned herein is the order dated 19.02.2021, whereby bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in case FIR No. 01, dated 01.01.2021, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Lower Kuram, District Kurram.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of State at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that it has not been disputed that when the vehicle was stopped by the police, the petitioner was merely sitting in the vehicle and he was not driving the said vehicle.
Narcotics were allegedly recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State after going through the file confirms that there is no connection of the petitioner with the said vehicle and even nothing was recovered from his personal possession or on his pointatio n. He, however , contends that petitioner was in the vehicle and in the circumstances it can be safely presumed that he had conscious knowledge of the narcotics concealed in that vehicle. and even he attempted to run away from the spot, when the police signaled the vehicle to stop. The question, the petitioner who was not a driver of the vehicle had conscious knowledge of narcotics concealed in the vehicle needs serious consideration, which shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In the circumstances, cue against the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant-Gul Manan is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
500,000/- (five hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 6 cases
- MUHAMMAD DAUD Versus State 2026 SCMR 115
- Muhammad Asif Versus State 2025 YLR 2764
- Aryan Afridi son of Yaqoot Khan vs State 2025 SHC 210
- Salman Hamid vs The State and another 2024 LHC 3779, 2024 YLR 2359, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1141
- Umar Ali vs The State etc 2023 PHC 311
- Awal Khan vs The State 2023 SHC 397