Muhammad Siddique @ Dablo vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged with the possession of 2000 grams of charas. The applicant sought bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing innocence, false implication by the police, and the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery. The State opposed the application, highlighting the applicant's status as a habitual offender. The Court held that while the absence of independent witnesses was noted, police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be summarily disregarded at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence of narcotics possession affects society at large and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty of the charged offence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, finding no sufficient grounds for release, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. The judgment reaffirms that police recovery witnesses are credible at the bail stage and that habitual offending is a relevant factor in bail adjudication.
- Are police officials considered competent witnesses for the purpose of bail adjudication in narcotics cases?
- Does the absence of independent witnesses to a recovery automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the status of a habitual offender a relevant consideration when deciding a bail application?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that on arrest from the applic ant was secured 2000 grams of charas by police party of PS Tando Muhammad Khan led by SIP Qurban Ali, for that he was booked and reported upon.
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNSA) Tando Muhammad Khan has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail 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 applicant is in custody since three months, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry .
4. Learned A.P.G for the State has oppo sed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that he is habitual offender .
5. In rebuttal, it is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that in none of the case so pending against the applicant he has been convicted.
6. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. The applicant is named in FIR with specific allegation that on arrest from him has been secured 2000 grams of the charas by police. The police party apparently was having no reason to involve the applicant in a false case, who is appearing to be habitual offender . No doubt there is no independent witnes s to the incident, but there could be made no denial to the fact that the police officials are as good witnesses as others and there appears no justification to disbelieve them at this stage. The offence is affecting the society at large. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. No case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently , the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to learned trial Court to dispose of the very case of the applicant within three months positively .