MUHAMMAD JAMEEL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Jameel, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for the alleged possession of 25 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the recovery of narcotics, witnessed solely by police officers without independent public witnesses, violated the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the recovery was not invalidated by the absence of public witnesses. Relying on consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court established the principle that in narcotics cases, police officers are competent witnesses whose testimony is as credible as any other. The Court further noted that public witnesses are often reluctant to testify in drug trafficking cases, making strict compliance with Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, non-mandatory in such contexts. As the alleged offense carried a potential sentence of life imprisonment, the Court found the petitioner disentitled to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is the recovery of narcotics invalid if witnessed only by police officers without independent public witnesses?
- Is strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in cases involving the recovery of narcotics?
- Are police officers considered competent witnesses in narcotics recovery cases?
- Does the potential for a life imprisonment sentence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 bar the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Jameel, petitioner was arrested on 24-5-1995 in pursuance of a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No 113/95 recorded at Police Station City Dunyapur of District Lodhran under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order of 1979.
2. The specific allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that on receiving secret information that the petitioner is a drug pusher, the local police apprehended him from near a mosque and on his personal search 25 grams of heroin was recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged recovery is of no avail because it is in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Because the alleged recovery has only been witnessed by the police officers while nobody from the public has been made a witness, and in this context learned counsel places reliance upon the case of Boota Masih v. State reported in 1993 PCr.LJ 1198.
4. I am afraid I cannot subscribe any longer to the view taken in the said order because the Supreme Court has been consistently taking the view that in the matter of recovery of narcotics a police officer is as good a witness as any other. The Supreme Court has also consistently taken a judicial notice of the fact that in our social set-up witnesses from the public do not come forward to give evidence particularly in cases of drug trafficking. This view was first taken in the case of Said Muhammad v. State reported in PLD 1990 SC 1176 wherein it was held that in case of narcotics a strict compliance of the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Cannot be made mandatory. The same view was repeated in the case of Mirza Shah v. State reported in 1992 SCM R 1475 and was once again reiterated in the case of Muhammad Khan v. State reported in 1994 SCM R 1543. The latest view of the Supreme Court is in line with the earlier cases and their Lordships once again reiterated that a police officer is as good a witness as any other in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad v. State reported in 1995 SCM R 510.
5. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore the case falls within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Which disentitles the petitioner to the grant of bail.
' Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- MAJID BUKHARI vs THE STATE 2000 P.C.T.L.R. 260
- ROYCE DEAN WELLMAN vs THE STATE 1997 P.C.T.L.R. 245
- MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 79
- MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 79
- ROYCE DEAN WELLMAN vs THE STATE Through Collector Of Customs 1997 MLD 1708
- MAJID BUKHARI Versus THE STATE 2000 PLD 108