MUMTAZ ALI vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal matter involving charges under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal question presented was whether the proceedings were vitiated by a fundamental legal defect, specifically the failure to comply with the statutory requirements regarding the authority of the officer conducting the search and detention. The applicant contended that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged by an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.), whereas Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act mandates that such actions must be performed by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police (S.I.P.) or an equivalent rank. Additionally, it was argued that the provisions of Section 22 of the same Act were not followed. The Court, noting that the State did not oppose the application on these grounds, held that the failure to adhere to these mandatory statutory provisions constituted a basic legal defect. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that strict compliance with the rank-based authorization requirements under the Act is a prerequisite for the validity of the prosecution's case.
- Does the lodging of an F.I.R. by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police violate the requirements of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
- Is the failure to comply with the search and detention authorization provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act a valid ground for granting bail?
- Section 21, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 22, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a basic legal defect in the entire proceedings before the trial Court is that the provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act were not followed inasmuch as the F.I.R was lodged by A.S.I. Muhammad Ilyaz Oddho of Police Station Dhamrah whereas an officer not below the rank of S.I.P. Of the police or equivalent has been authorised by the said section to detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe has committed an offence punishable under the Act. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court has not applied its mind at all to this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order, although in the bail application such ground was urged. In support of this contention has relied upon on the cases of Khalid Nawaz v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 2008, Khan v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1225), Muhammad Akram v. The State 1999 YLR 1613. And Ghulam All v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 608).
2. ' Mr. Gul Hassan Solangi, learned counsel for the State does not oppose this application on the ground urged by the learned counsel and has also further submitted that the provisions of section 22 were not following at all by the concerned officer.
3. We have heard learned counsel as well as learned State counsel. In our view as a basic legal defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel in the F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant, we, therefore, grant bail to applicant. I Mumtaz All Junejo provided he submits surety in the sum of Rs, 2 lakhs and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the 'satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
4. ' The bail application stands disposed
Cited by 6 cases
- JANIB ALI ZARDARI vs The STATE 2014 YLR 632
- SHAHZAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 2162
- ABID HUSSAIN Versus State 2008 MLD 678
- MUHAMMAD SHAHID CHIRAGO vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 442
- Haji ABDUL MANAN vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 1080
- Haji ABDUL MANAN Versus THE STATE 2005 PCRLJ 1080