GHULAM RIAZ vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was involved in a case registered under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for the alleged recovery of 25 grams of heroin and 4 grams of charas from his chappal at a jail main gate. The core legal questions pertained to whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the rule of further inquiry, considering his allegations of torture, refusal to pay illegal gratification to jail staff, misuse of state powers, and the deliberate registration of the case under the Prohibition Order instead of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Lahore High Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds. The Court held that where the accused was in jail custody at the time of the alleged incident and raised plausible allegations of torture and mala fides on the part of the complainant, a case for further inquiry under criminal procedure was made out.
- Whether allegations of torture and mala fides by jail authorities against an accused in custody make out a case for further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted where an accused alleges that a case was registered under an harsher law rather than the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 due to mala fide intentions?
- Does an allegation of mala fides on the part of the complainant justify releasing an accused on bail under the rule of further inquiry?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' The petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No,332, dated 26-9-1997 for offences under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 registered at Police Station City Mianwali for the alleged recovery of 25 grams of heroin and 4 grams of Charas from his Chappal at the main gate of the jail.
2. Earlier the bail was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali on 5-5-1998.
3. The bail is pressed on the grounds that the jail staff demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner which was not paid and thereafter he was tortured and with a view to make out some defence the petitioner was involved in the instant case and that there was no occasion to procure intoxicant from an quarter and that the present case is better example of misuse of powers by the State functionaries. It is further submitted that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has since been promulgated but even then case against the petitioner has been registered under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 with mala fide intention because the sentence provided under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provides sentence only two years and the offence would be bailable one and that section 9 (ibid) was not inserted with mala fide intention.
4. The bail is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. And that recovery has been effected from his Chappal.
5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.
6. The question that the petitioner was in custody in the jail where the prisoners are being kept continuously and there is also allegation of torture to the petitioner and grievance made by him and the allegation of mala fides on the part of the complainant makes this case that of further inquiry as such, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.