MUHAMMAD BILAL Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 50 kilograms of 'Posst' from his possession. The petitioner, a minor aged 13/14 years, contended that his age and physical stature rendered it implausible for him to carry such a heavy load, and argued that the case was mala fide. The State opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of the offence. The Court observed that the petitioner's alleged statement implicated his father and a third party as the intended recipient of the contraband, yet the prosecution failed to include these individuals in the investigation. Finding it prima facie implausible that a minor could carry the weight in question and noting the failure to investigate the named accomplices, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the lack of investigation into the alleged co-accused and the physical improbability of the recovery created sufficient grounds for relief.
- Does the failure to investigate named accomplices in a narcotics case constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding the guilt of the accused?
- Is the physical improbability of an accused carrying a specific quantity of contraband a valid consideration for granting bail?
- Should a minor accused of a serious offence be granted bail when the prosecution fails to investigate the individuals allegedly directing the criminal act?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.439, dated 22‑12‑2003 under sections 6/9 of the C.N.S.A. at Police Station Batapur, Lahore. The prosecution story is that on a source report to the effect that at the bus stand a huge quantity of "Posst" is likely to arrive, a raid was conducted and the police party found petitioner deboarding a bus carrying a bag. He was arrested and when the bag was opened it contained "Posst" weighing 50 kilograms.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that the petitioner is between 13/14 years of age, that a body of this age is even otherwise incapable of carrying a bag weighing 50 kilograms, that the case has been registered for 'mala' fide reason and that petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition by submitting that the offence alleged is serious in nature and that no case for bail is made out. He, however, does not deny that the petitioner is about 14 years of age.
3. Heard.
4. As per the prosecution the afore‑referred bag was recovered from the petitioner, who in his statement recorded before the police allegedly admitted to have carried the bag at the asking of his father to be delivered to one Muhammad Shafique. It is conceded before this Court by the learned State Counsel that neither petitioner's father nor the afore referred Muhammad Shafique were made to join the investigation. Prima facie it is repellent to common sense a minor of petitioner's age and physique could carry such a heavy bag. The non‑association of petitioner's father and the person to whom the bag was to be delivered makes the question of petitioner's guilt a matter of further inquiry. In the afore‑referred circumstances this petition is allowed and subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, he shall be released on bail.
H.B.T./M‑687/L Bail granted.