Yousaf vs State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-D of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 10,160 grams of chars from under the seat of a vehicle he was driving. The primary legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted to a juvenile driver when conscious knowledge of the contraband requires determination at trial. The Peshawar High Court granted bail, holding that power to grant bail is not punitive and the key considerations are availability for trial and non-tampering with evidence. The Court observed that given the petitioner was 16 years old according to his National Identity Card, his conscious knowledge and possession of the narcotics remained a matter for trial. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of criminal antecedents and ordered the investigation officer to trace the owner of the vehicle. The principle laid down is that conscious knowledge is an essential ingredient of possession under narcotics laws, which must be proved at trial when dealing with a minor driver with no previous record.
- Is conscious knowledge of contraband an essential ingredient of possession that must be proved at trial?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted to a juvenile accused driving a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered where conscious possession is yet to be established?
- Are lack of criminal antecedents and juvenile age valid considerations for granting bail in narcotics cases?
- Section 9-D, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
Through the instant petition, accused-petitioner , Yousaf, seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 46 dated 12.03.2021 under Section 9-D CNSA, registered at Police Station, Lower Kurram, District Kurram, wherein he is charged for possessing 10160 grams chars, recovered from beneath the seat of vehicle bearing Registration No. CR-8374, which at the relevant time, was driven by him.
Arguments heard and record gone through.
2. Power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before the trial is being imposed. The only considerations in considering bail petition are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretio n granted in his favour by tampering with the prosecution evidence. In the instant case, the recovery has been effected from beneath the seat of vehicle but looking at the age of accused- petitioner , it is still to be proved at trial whether the possession of the narcotics was with conscious knowledge or without knowledge, as possession with knowledge is an essential ingredient of the offence. Besides, it is also to be seen as to how the vehicle was given to the accused-petitioner for use, who according to his National Identity Card (under 18 years), is 16 years old and would attain the age of 18 years by 04.02.2023, thus the owner of the vehicle namely , Mughlim be traced out and shall be associated with the investigation in the instant case. Moreover , the accused-petitioner has no criminal antecedents, thus keeping him behind the bars would serve no useful purpose; hence, without touching the merits of the case, the accused- petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The sureties shall be reliable and men of means.
3. Needless to remark that the observations made hereinbefore are tentative in nature and the trial Court while deciding the lis shall not be swayed from the observations made in this order .
4. Above are the reasons for the short order of even date.