MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous application arises from an order passed by the Judge Special Court (CNSA), Peshawar, declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Khan, who was apprehended following the recovery of 800 grams of heroin from a motor car driven by him. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the alleged non-compliance with statutory recovery provisions and the quantum of the narcotics seized. The Peshawar High Court held that prima facie the petitioner is connected to the offense involving a large quantity of narcotics, and bail may be refused even for offenses outside the prohibitory clause where exceptional circumstances exist. The court dismissed the bail application while directing the prosecution to submit the challan within fifteen days.
- Can a court decline bail for an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics constitute an exceptional circumstance to deny post-arrest bail?
- Whether alleged non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitles an accused to bail in narcotics cases?
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Upon receipt of a spy information Motor Car No.4848‑RNG was intercepted at Jamrud Road near Secondary Board, Peshawar. The search of the car led to recovery of 800 grams heroin. The person driving the car disclosed his name Muhammad Khan son of Abdul Akbar whereas the person sitting on the front seat introduced himself Fakhre Alam son of Rokhan. Both the driver and the person occupying the front seat were formally arrested and a case was registered against them on 6‑7‑2002 vide F.I.R. No. 1‑5, Police Station Anti‑Narcotics Force, Peshawar.
2. The petitioner moved an application before Judge Special Court (CNSA), Peshawar for grant of bail which was declined vide order dated 7‑8‑2002, giving rise to the filing of instant application.
3. Syed Sardar Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner contended with force that the petitioner has been falsely associated with the guilt and that in view of the non‑compliance of mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. the recovery has become doubtful and as such case of the petitioner is fit for grant of bail. He relied on Nazan Shah v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1540 (Karachi).
4. Conversely Mr. Tariq Kakar, Advocate learned counsel for ANF opposed the bail application and prayed for sustenance of the impugned order refusing bail to the petitioner. He relied on Gul Said v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1680 (Peshawar).
5. Be that as it may, without expressing my opinion about merits of the case, I find that large quantity of heroin weighing 800 grams has been recovered from the Suzuki car driven by the petitioner at the time of interception by the Anti‑Narcotic Staff. Prima facie the petitioner is associated with the guilt and I do not feel inclined to release him on bail. It is a well‑settled proposition, of law that even in respect of offences not falling under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. the Courts may decline to admit an accused to bail if there exists a recognized exceptional circumstance. Imtiaz Ahmad v. State PL D 1997 SC 545.
6. In the wake of above discussion, finding no substance in this application I dismiss the same and decline to admit tae petitioner to bail. It is submitted by learned counsel for ANF that investigation is complete and challan is likely to be submitted in Court within a week. The prosecution is directed to submit challan in Court within fifteen days. The office shall send file of the case to the quarter concerned immediately.
S.M.A.H./679/P Bail refused.