TOOR GUL KHAN Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 235 grams of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a gazetted police officer found the accused innocent during investigation and recommended discharge, notwithstanding the Magistrate's disagreement with that report. The Lahore High Court held that the finding of innocence by a senior police officer creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, bringing the case outside the prohibitory clause and making the statutory embargo inapplicable. The court laid down the principle that an investigation report finding an accused innocent during police inquiry constitutes a significant circumstance warranting the grant of post-arrest bail, and the opinion of the investigating officer, while not strictly binding, weighs heavily in assessing further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a police officer finds the accused innocent during investigation?
- Does the statutory embargo under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act bar bail when grounds for further inquiry exist?
- Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding innocence binding upon the Magistrate?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
Toor Gul Khan petitioner has sought for Post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 142 dated 14-5-2002, under section 9-B Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV) of 1997 and Article 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order No,4 of 1979, Police Station Mehmood Kot, District. Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 14-5-2002 235 grams charas was recovered from his possession.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been involved in the instant case by; the police being in league with his business rivals; that in the investigation by a gazetted police officer he was found quite innocent and.the case liable to cancellation and accordingly discharge report was prepared, but the learned Magistrate concerned did not agree with the same and he due to this reason is in jail; that the reason offered by the learned Magistrate not agreeing with the report regarding his discharge from the case is not sound and from the record, that even though, the learned Magistrate did not agree with the discharge report, there are circumstances in his favour creating doubt in the prosecution case against him and ultimately there is no chance of his conviction in the same; that in view of the finding of innocence in his favour recorded by the gazetted police officer of the rank of D.S.P, there are no reasonable ground to believe that he has committed a non-bailable offence and rather there is ground for further inquiry into his guilt and when this may be position, then embargo contained in section 51 of the Act supra, will not come in the way to the grant of bail to an accused: and that he is behind the bars for the last more than one month and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the application. mainly on the ground that opinion of the Investigating Officer regarding his innocence is not binding upon the Court and so the learned Magistrate has validly disagreed with the discharge report.
5. We have carefully considered the agreements advanced by both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. Allegedly 235 grams charas was recovered from his possession. The contention from his side is that he has falsely been roped in by the police being in league with his business rivals. It has been borne out from the record that D.S.P, Kot Adu in the investigation has found his such version to be correct. The said D.S.P on 22-5-2002 had prepared report regarding his discharge from the case. Mian Muhammad Arshad Anjum, learned Civil Judge cum Magistrate, Kot Adu had not agreed with that report. It has appeared that on one hand he (the learned Magistrate) has mentioned that finding regarding his (petitioner) innocence is not based upon sufficient evidence but on the other that there is no such finding on the file. Any way, we do not feel it necessary to make any further comment on this observation of the learned Magistrate. However, suffice it would be to say here that in the investigation by a police officer of the rank of D.S.P. his above-referred version was found to be correct and the case to be false. The report regarding his discharge from the case has been prepared. This fact lead us to hold that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. And when this may be the position, then embargo placed by section 51 of the Act supra will not come in his way to the grant of bail. He is behind the bars stated to be non- convict.
7. In view of the same, we accept this application and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh.