AMIR ALAM vs THE STATEOpponent
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of narcotics from a bus he was driving. The core legal question was whether the applicant, as the driver of the vehicle, could be held criminally liable for the possession of narcotics recovered from specific passengers, given that no incriminating material was found in his personal possession. The Court observed that the prosecution admitted the recovery was effected exclusively from eight other passengers and that the applicant had no direct connection to the contraband. Furthermore, the prosecution conceded that the bus owner was not investigated or charged. Holding that the applicant's alleged participation required further inquiry at trial, the Court determined that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that a driver cannot be held vicariously liable for narcotics possession solely by virtue of their employment when no personal recovery or knowledge of the contraband is established.
- Can a bus driver be held criminally liable for the possession of narcotics found on passengers solely by virtue of their employment?
- Does the absence of incriminating recovery from an accused person entitle them to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is the failure to investigate the owner of a vehicle relevant when determining the culpability of the driver in a narcotics case?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,20 of 2000 registered with Police Station Excise Branch Hyderabad under section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. He moved bail application before the trial Court but without success. Hence this bail application.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that on or about 16th day of December, 2000, at about 8-00 p.m. On receipt of spy information complainant Muhammad Amin Shaikh Excise Inspector, Crime Branch.
3. Hyderabad along with subordinate staff intercepted a bus bearing registration No, BU-1065 on National Highway near Noor Shah Agricultural Farm, District Hyderabad and conducted the search of the bus as well as passengers sitting therein whereby he secured commercial quantity of Charas beneath the seat of the bus and few other peieces of Charas from the shoes which the passengers had put on the back seat of the bus and they were also wearing the shoes in their feet.
4. The present applicant Amir Alam is driver of the bus who was apprehended by the Excise Police but nothing incriminating was secured from his possession.
5. ' Mr. Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi, Advocate for applicant has contended that the present applicant has been arrested on 16-12-2000 at 5-50 p.m. Along with 8 accused namely and respectively Hanif, Abdullah, Nawaz, Abdul Rahim, Mehrabuddin, Hukmaran, Muhammad Yakoob and Atta Muhammad. According to him the recovery of Charas has been effected from the possession of the 8 accused afore named and so also sandles were recovered from the possession of the 8 accused aforenamed. Apart from this 2 shoulder bags were also recovered from the possession of Hanif Khan and Abdullah Jan and each bag weighed lkg. Charas. According to Mr. Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi the present applicant is driver of the bus and 30 passengers were travelling in the bus and no liability can be thrown on the shoulders of the present applicant as driver. He further contended that 2 leather bags were also lying beneath the rear seats with 2 kgs. Charas belonging to the afore named accused Hanif and others. There is no recovery from the possession of the present 'accused. Mr. Noor-ul-Haq Qureshi has further disclosed during arguments that 2 bags were also lying in the dash board where charas of 60 grams was available belonging to Hanif Khan and Abdullah Jan. According to defence counsel it has been admitted by accused Hanif Khan and Abdullah Jan with regard to the commission of the offence. He has further contended that the appellants have not been able to lay hands on the owner of bus namely Haji Hidayatullah Khan Transport Company, on the contrary the present applicant being driver has been impleaded as one of the accused which is not warranted under the law and the complicity for the alleged offence of the present applicant is a question which can be seen at the time of trial. Finally he prayed for the grant of bail.
6. ' On the other 'hand Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned counsel for Advocate-General for State very frankly submitted that the entire recovery has been shown from the possession of the 8 accused afore named and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The only evidence against him is that he was the driver of the bus. When asked as to whether the owner of bus namely Haji, Hidayatullah Khan Transport Company has been joined by police in investigation, he replied very frankly that' he has not been joined in investigation nor he has been impleaded as one of the accused being the owner of the bus and he has no objection if the present applicant being driver be granted bail,.
7. ' We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the material available on record. Admittedly there is no incriminating evidence against the present applicant. The only evidence against him is that he is the driver of the bus.
8. Admittedly 30 passengers were also travelling in the bus and none of them has been examined by police. Admittedly the recovery has been effected from the possession of Hanif Khan. Abdullah Jan and others. All the other quantity of the Charas bags full of Charas and Charas lying in dash board belonged to Hanif Khan and Abdullah Jan which has not been disputed by Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar.
9. In these circumstances the question with regard to the participation in the alleged offence on the part of the present applicant can be thrashed out at the time of trial and his case is falling within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Prima, facie, the present applicant has been able to make out a good prima facie case for grant of bail. Accordingly he is granted bail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.