SADAM Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by two accused persons, Sadam and Anwar Aziz, who were booked under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the recovery and the evidence presented. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the cases of the two petitioners were distinguishable. Regarding the first petitioner, Sadam, the court found that a significant quantity of narcotics (1000g of charas) was recovered from his possession, establishing sufficient prima facie evidence of his involvement, and thus denied his bail. Conversely, regarding the second petitioner, Anwar Aziz, the court observed that no narcotics were recovered from his person. Consequently, the court granted bail to Anwar Aziz, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case against co-accused is distinguishable based on the absence of incriminating recovery, bail may be granted to the accused from whom no recovery was effected, while refusing it to the one connected to the recovery.
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused from whom no narcotics were recovered despite the recovery of narcotics from a co-accused?
- Does the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics from an accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Is the case of a co-accused distinguishable for the purpose of bail if no incriminating material was recovered from their possession?
- Section 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- Petitioners, who are involved for the offences of sections 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, booked through FIR No.01/2016 of Police Station Singal, District Ghizer, seek their release on bail, through this petition. Previously, petitioner sought similar facility from the court of Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-Narcotics Ghizer, through B.A. No.03/16, who, through his order dated 01-03-2016, refused to grant the same facility.
2. Prosecution story of occurrence is that on the day of occurrence, police of Singal had shut up the road and were checking vehicles plying on the same. During such checking police noted that accused came on a motorcycle and turned the same into a street instead of continuing their journey towards Gahkuch. Police chased accused and arrested them. On physical search of the two accused, police recovered narcotics from accused Sadam while nothing was recovered from accused Anwar Aziz. Police completed the preliminary investigation and sent both petitioners to judicial lockup.
3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General. In the case in hand, charas weighing 1000g has reportedly been recovered from petitioner Sadam. The quantity of the narcotics is huge and there is sufficient prima facie evidence, at least at this stage of the case, showing connection of petitioner Sadam with the occurrence. According to police record, prosecution has recovered narcotics from petitioner Sadam in presence of PWs to the recovery memo.
4. So, at this stage of the case, we are not inclined to grant the bail facility to petitioner No.1 Sadam. Anyhow, police did not recover any narcotics from petitioner No.2, Anwar Aziz, therefore, the case between the two petitioners is distinguishable. We, therefore, allow bail facility to petitioner No.2, Anwar Aziz, who be released forthwith if not required in any other case, but that also subject to furnishing of personal bail bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate at Ghizer. Petition allowed to the extent of petitioner No.2, Anwar Aziz, but petition stands dismissed to the extent of petitioner No.1, Sadam. This file be consigned to record.
HBT/97/GB Order accordingly.