TARIQ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by Tariq against the State, where the applicant was apprehended with 12 grams of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report and the small quantity of the seized substance. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and held that the lack of the essential requirement of forwarding the heroin powder for chemical analysis, coupled with the small quantity involved and the parallel statutory punishment framework, warranted further inquiry into the applicant's guilt. The court laid down the principle that the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report on record during the pre-trial stage for a small quantity of narcotics constitutes a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail.
- Does the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report in the police record for a small quantity of seized heroin justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether an offence involving a small quantity of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 warrants further inquiry when chemical analysis proof is missing.
- Article 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 9(a), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' As stated in the F.I.R. Applicant Tariq and another accused Abdul Rashid were apprehended by A.S.I. Abdur Razzak of Police Station Ghulshan-e-Iqbal from hutments situated in Railway Colony and on search heroin weighing 12 grams was secured from possession of the applicant and 10 grams from the other accused Abdul Rashid. A case was registered against the applicant for an offence punishable under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. A certified copy of charge-sheet, dated 12-8-2001 has been placed on record; it is silent about the essential requirement of forwarding the heroin powder to Chemical Examiner for analysis.
Learned State Counsel also could not produce Chemical Examiner's Report. He was also not able to find out such entry in the police papers diaries. Indeed, on this score alone the case requires further enquiry. Learned State Counsel has no objection to grant of bail as the quantity of heroin is too small.
3. It is of significance to mention that there is a parallel statute viz., the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, section 9(a) whereof prescribed a punishment of two years in case of heroin powder weighing 100 grams or less. All the same, the authorities cited by learned counsel for applicant, 1986 MLD 2220 (Dr. Muhammad Shafiq Bol Khan v. Hafiz Muhammad Taqi) and 1990 PCr.LJ 1153 (Karachi) (Shahid Javed v. The State) also supports the bail plea.
4. In these circumstances, considering no objection on behalf of State, the application is allowed.
The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and executing P.R.
Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.