WAJID ALI Versus State
The petitioner, a driver of a vehicle, sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 15 kilograms of Charas. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had conscious knowledge of the contraband found in a bag at the feet of his co-accused passenger. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s role as a driver, without evidence of prior association or ownership of the narcotics, warranted the denial of bail, especially given the co-accused's confession exonerating the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner’s case constituted one of further inquiry because the recovery was not from his immediate possession, and the co-accused had explicitly claimed sole ownership of the contraband. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was complete, rendering continued detention unnecessary. The court established the principle that where a driver is unaware of the contents of a passenger's luggage and the co-accused admits sole possession, the driver is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Is a driver of a vehicle liable for narcotics possession if the contraband was in the sole possession of a passenger?
- Does a co-accused's confession claiming sole ownership of narcotics entitle the driver of the vehicle to bail?
- When does a narcotics case qualify as a case of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ZIA-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.--- Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining his release on bail in the case F.I.R. No.326 dated 30-10-2010 under section 9(c), C.N.S.A. P.S. Ustarzai District Kohat, the petitioner has moved the instant petition for the said purpose.
2. The prosecution case as per contents of the F.I.R. is that on the day of occurrence there was a spy information that huge quantity of Charas would be smuggled from Orakzai Agency. Accordingly a barricade was laid at Mari Road Kohat. In the meanwhile a grey colour Suzuki Pick up appeared, which was stopped. On being asked the driver disclosed his name Wajid Ali (the present petitioner), while the other person sitting in front seat told his name as Hamraz Ali. During checking there was found a plastic bag lying in front of his feet, when the same was opened, there were found three shopping bags each of which containing 5 Kgs i.e. total 15 Kgs Charas were recovered. Five grams charas was separated from each shopping bag and rest 14 Kgs and 985 grams was sealed into a parcel. The Charas and the vehicle were taken into possession and the accused were arrested on the spot, and the above mentioned case was registered against them. The petitioner applied for his release on bail, but the same rejected by the learned ASJ-I, Kohat vide order dated 6-11-2010. Thus the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been wrongly enroped in the instant case, because he being driver of the said vehicle had no knowledge about the presence of the said contraband in possession of his co-accused; that the said recovery was not effected from the immediate possession of the petitioner, rather the same was lying in front of his co-accused. He further contended that the ownership of the recovered contraband has been in clear manner admitted by the co-accused while recording his confessional statement in which he has totally exonerated the petitioner from his being involved in any manner in the commission of offence coupled with fact that investigation in this case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation and it would serve no useful purpose even if he is further detained.
4. On the contrary, the learned State counsel opposed the grant of bail maintaining that being driver of the vehicle he had conscious knowledge about the existence of the narcotics in the said vehicle. He also contended that the punishment provided for such like offence is life imprisonment, which fact also disentitles the petitioner from the concession of bail.
5. This court would like to take combined effect of the arguments advanced by both the sides in the light of the material by making its tentative assessment in order to hold as to whether in the given circumstances of the case available facts are sufficient for reasonably connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence or his case is of further inquiry and till the decision of the main case, he deserves to be extended the concession of bail.
6. At the very outset this Court would like to determine as to what is the role of the present petitioner. For this purpose the perusal of the record shows that he is the driver of the said vehicle and had picked up his co-accused as a passenger, who was in possession of a plastic bag, wherein the contraband was concealed. The same was lying on the foot pad of the vehicle and just near his feet. There is nothing on the file to show that either the said co-accused was previously known to him or he was his relative or co-villager. The recovery was neither effected from the immediate possession of the petitioner nor from any other secret cavity of the vehicle driven by the petitioner. The most important piece of evidence favouring the petitioner is his confessional statement and by the co-accused. The petitioner while recording his confessional statement has totally shown his ignorance about any connection with the recovered stuff, rather he has deposed that the recovery was effected from his co-accused, who was picked up by him as a passenger. This statement finds corroboration from the confessional statement of the co-accused, who in his confessional statement has claimed the ownership of the recovered stuff stating that the same was purchased by him and the present petitioner did not know that inside the bag there was Charas.
7. Moreover, since the date of his arrest the petitioner is in the lock up and as investigation against him is complete, thus, his further detention would serve no useful purpose to the prosecution.
8. The cumulative effect of the above discussion leads this Court to the conclusion that in view of non-existence of reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and his case being a case of further inquiry is fit for considering his plea for his release on bail. Resultantly this petition is allowed, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of sufficient means.
H.B.T./299/P Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2689