STATE Trough Collector, Customs And Central Excise, Peshawar vs SARFRAZ
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Peshawar High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was charged with transporting 60 kilograms of heroin concealed in a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail by characterizing the case as one of further inquiry based on the respondent's status as a government servant and his claim of ignorance regarding the contraband. The Supreme Court held that the recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics from a vehicle driven by the respondent established a prima facie case, rendering the High Court's assessment of 'further inquiry' erroneous. The Court emphasized that while an accused's statement to Customs authorities might not be substantive evidence at trial, it is relevant for bail adjudication. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondent's status as a government servant does not justify bail in cases involving serious narcotics offenses where prima facie evidence exists. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision refusing bail.
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from a vehicle driven by an accused constitute a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail?
- Can an accused's statement to Customs authorities be considered by a court when deciding a bail application?
- Is the status of an accused as a government servant a valid ground for granting bail in a serious narcotics case?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This is petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 12-10-1993 of the Peshawar High Court, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.449 of 1995. Notice was issued to the respondents on 20-5-1996. On the datt6 fixed i.e. 29-5-1996 it was reported that notice has not been served upon the respondent, therefore, fresh notice was ordered to be issued through the Customs Authority. The date is listed for hearing today.
2. Mr. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record present on behalf of the accused/respondent states that he has no instructions from his client and he was unable to contact him for the date of hearing.
3. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/State. Masarrat Shah, Deputy Superintendent Customs on 9-4-1995 lodged a report, bearing No.32, that on the information given to him by Shamas-ud-Din, Assistant Collector Customs and Central Excise Kohat on 8-4-1995 at about 12 noon the Customs Squad headed by him saw motor car No.LHW-4444 coming from Kohat side. Motor car was stopped and searched and from its secret cavities 60 kilograms heroin powder was recovered which was packed in 60 different packets weighing one Kilogram each. These packets have been marked as "Ittifaq 777". Two grams of substance recovered was separated and sealed into a separate parcel for Chemical Examination. Saifraz Khan dirver of the car and his companions namely, Hamid Ullah, Asifullah and Mst. Haleema, the occupants of the car were apprehended for offence under Article 3/4 of the Order of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Sarfraz petitioner moved an application for release on bail in the Court of Special Judge (C) (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling) N.-W.F.P., Peshawar which was rejected on 17-5-1995. Dissatisfied with the above order the petitioner approached the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar for his release on bail. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Peshawar High Court vide order dated 12-10-1996 against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
4. It was contended before the learned High Court that the petitioner is a WAPDA employee and is a Government servant and that the car from which heroin was recovered does not belong to him.
That the car was hired by Mst. Haleema, the co-accused, from some unknown person and that he was simply asked to drive the car to a shrine. That he had no knowledge of the secret cavities in the car wherein heroin powder was hidden. The learned High Court on such pleas allowed bail holding that it was case of further inquiry. It was further held that respondent is a Government servant, therefore, there was no likelihood of his abscondence.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was apprehended on prior information and a huge quantity of heroin powder was recovered from the car being driven by him. He admitted before the Customs Authority that the car belonged to one Islam Gul resident of Jamrod and that he had paid Rs.25,000 for taking the car to a place near Minar-i---Pakistan, Lahore. Such being the case it cannot be said that the case is that of further inquiry. No doubt the statement of the accused/respondent is not relevant at the trial but it could be taken into consideration while disposing of an application for bail. Even otherwise huge quantity of heroin powder having been recovered from the car driven by the respondent makes out a prima facie case against him which disentitles him to the concession of bail. The learned trial Judge took into consideration all the material available before him in refusing to extend the concession of bail in respondent's favour. The approach of the learned High Court that it was a case of further inquiry and that the respondent is a Government servant leaving little scope for abscondence in a serious offence of the present nature, is erroneous. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The appeal is accepted, the judgment of the learned High Court is set aside and th4t of the learned Special Judge is restored. Copies of the order should be sent to the authorities concerned for further proceedings according to law.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Sarfraz Ansari vs The State and another 2021 MLD 1546
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE 2001 PCRLJ 1420