SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed by Sajjad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 7/96 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the arresting officer, who was also the complainant and recovery witness, proceeded to conduct the investigation himself without proper authorization, causing potential prejudice to the case. The Lahore High Court held that since the Investigating Officer was also the complainant and recovery witness, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the combination of complainant, recovery witness, and investigating officer in a single police official without proper authorization brings the prosecution's case within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether bail can be granted when the complainant is also the investigating officer and recovery witness?
- Does the investigation of a case by a C.I.A. staff member without proper entrustment by the District Superintendent of Police prejudice the prosecution case?
- Is a case open to further inquiry when all prosecution witnesses are police officials and the investigator is also the complainant?
- Articles 3 and 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This petition has been moved on behalf of Sajjad Hussain for bail in case F.I.R. No,7/96, dated 11-1- 1996 registered at Police Station Pak Gate, Multan under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995.
2. The petitioner was arrested by Khadim Hussain, Inspector C.I.A., Multan while he was on patrol duty at Faisal Chowk. On personal search heroin weighing 27 grams was allegedly recovered from the petitioner out of which one gram was sealed into a parcel for chemical examination.
3. The complainant/Inspector, C.I.A. After recovering the heroin from the possession of the petitioner proceeded to conduct the investigation himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Iftikhar Ahmad alias Dani v. The State PLD 1995 Lah. 606 in which, while disposing of Criminal Appeal No,135 of 1994 the Division Bench observed that "no member of the C.I.A. Staff has any authority or power to investigate a case of their own motion in the absence of such an investigation having been entrusted to him by the S.P. Of the District". In the present case the situation is not different to the one discussed in the above-referred case. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and according to the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. All the prosecution witnesses B are police officials. Khadim Hussain, Inspector was not only the recovery witness but was also a complainant and the Investigating Officer undoubtedly causing prejudice to the case of the present petition.
4. In view of what has been stated above, the case of the petitioner is open, to further inquiry. The trial Court shall, however, not be influenced by the IL observation made above and shall apply his independent mind while deciding the case. The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond n in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- Syed MUHAMMAD AYAZ Versus State 2020 YLRN 160
- ABDUL WASAY SOOMRO Versus State 2017 YLRN 446
- M. SHAFQAT IMRAN vs THE STATE through M.C.C. (Preventive) Office of D.E.C., JIAP, Karachi 2010 YLR 2238
- THE STATE through Deputy Director, Anti Narcotics Force, Karachi vs MOBIN 2000 SCMR 299
- MUHAMMAD MUBINAccused/ vs THE STATE 1999 MLD 1260