Supreme Court of Pakistani THE STATE vs SAKHI DOST JAN
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the High Court whereby the respondent was admitted to bail in a case involving the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail where the recovery was effected from an open area like a garden of date-trees and the exclusive possession of the accused has not been conclusively shown at this stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and not arbitrarily given the facts and circumstances where exclusive possession is doubtful and the prosecution must establish recovery through reliable evidence at trial. The key principle laid down is that where exclusive possession of contraband from an open area is not prima facie established, the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail will not be interfered with by the apex court.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be sustained when the recovery of narcotics is made from an open area without showing exclusive possession of the accused?
- Does the exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail warrant interference by the Supreme Court when it is not arbitrary?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the High Court, dated 21-4-1991 whereby the respondent Sakhi Dost Jan was admitted to bail.
2. The facts of the case are that a report of the incident was lodged on 6-1-1991. The recovery of contraband article was made from 24th to 26th December, 1990. According to this report, huge quantity of Narcotic was recovered. After the investigation, the challan has been submitted.
3. The recovery had been effected from a garden of dates-trees. The exclusive possession of the respondent has not been shown. The area had been thoroughly searched on 11-10-1990 therefore the prosecution has to establish the recovery in the present case through reliable evidence. A discretion has been exercised by the High Court which is not arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
4. Any observation on merits of the case is not binding on the trial Court.