IMDAD ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Imdad Ali, who was charged with the possession of a Kalashnikov, 20 live bullets, and 1500 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial, given the arguments regarding the alleged foisting of the recovered items, the absence of private witnesses (Mashirs) to the recovery, and the fact that the applicant had already been granted bail in a separate case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The State counsel did not controvert the factual aspects of the case, other than the allegation of foisting, and conceded to the grant of bail. The Court, considering the circumstances and the precedent of a similar unreported case, held that the applicant should be admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the State does not contest the factual basis of a bail application and the applicant has already been in custody for a significant period, bail may be granted subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.
- Can bail be granted when the recovery of contraband is witnessed only by official witnesses?
- Does the concession of the State counsel regarding the grant of bail influence the court's decision?
- Is the fact that an applicant has been granted bail in a related case a relevant factor for bail in the current proceedings?
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' The allegations against the appellant are that on 18th August, 2000 at 12-00 noon one K.K. With 20 live bullets and Charas weighing 1500 Kgs. Were recovered from him.
2. It is informed that the charge-sheet against the applicant has been submitted on 2-9-2000, Learned counsel submits that the applicant is innocent person and he has been involved on account of enmity and that the weapon as well as Charas has been foisted upon him. He contends that no private person has acted as Mashir and that recovery has been witnessed only by the official witnesses. Also, his contention is that the police registered against the applicant a separate case under section 9 of (C.N.S.) Act in which he has already been granted bail. He submits that the applicant has already remained in jail for more than 5 months.
3. ' He has referred to an unreported case viz. Criminal Bail Appeal No, 65 of 1997 in which in similar circumstances, a D.B. Of this Court, consisting of Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Zafar Hadi Shah, granted bail.
4. Learned State counsel, not controverting the factual aspect of the case except the allegation of foisting of the property recovered from the applicant, has very frankly conceded to the grant of bail.
5. ' In view of the above, the applicant is admitted to bail and he shall be released on furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUNEER vs The STATE 2014 MLD 723
- MUHAMMAD SHAHID CHIRAGO vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 442
- HANOOK BABAR MASIH vs THE STATE 2007 YLR 3105
- ATTA HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE 2002 PLD Karachi 113