Abdul Raheem V. The State,
Bench: Abdul Hameed Baloch
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Abdul Raheem who applied for bail after being arrested and charged under Pakistan's narcotics law. He was accused of carrying 2 kilograms of hashish on his person, while another 3.4 kilograms of opium was allegedly recovered from beneath the seat of the rickshaw he was traveling in, along with a co-accused.
The Balochistan High Court granted him bail. The judges found that the evidence connecting him to the opium found in the rickshaw lacked independent supporting proof, and it was not yet established that he had knowledge of the opium's presence. This meant the case required further inquiry rather than being a clear-cut matter. The court also noted that for the hashish recovery, the amount involved meant he likely would not face the maximum possible sentence, and courts deciding bail should consider the sentence realistically expected in the circumstances, not just the harshest penalty theoretically available under the law. Since he had already completed the investigation phase and been moved to jail custody, keeping him detained further served no real purpose.
This case is a useful illustration of how courts approach bail in narcotics cases, showing that weak or uncorroborated evidence linking an accused to recovered substances, combined with the principle that bail should reflect the likely rather than maximum sentence, can justify release even in serious drug cases while the trial proceeds.
یہ مقدمہ عبدالرحیم نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق ہے جس نے پاکستان کے منشیات کے قانون کے تحت گرفتاری اور فردِ جرم کے بعد ضمانت کی درخواست دائر کی۔ اس پر الزام تھا کہ وہ خود اپنے قبضے میں 2 کلوگرام چرس لے کر جا رہا تھا، جبکہ مزید 3.4 کلوگرام افیون مبینہ طور پر اس رکشے کی نشست کے نیچے سے برآمد ہوئی جس میں وہ ایک ساتھی ملزم کے ہمراہ سفر کر رہا تھا۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے اسے ضمانت دے دی۔ ججوں نے پایا کہ رکشے سے برآمد ہونے والی افیون کو ملزم سے جوڑنے والا ثبوت آزادانہ تائیدی شہادت سے محروم تھا، اور یہ بات ابھی ثابت نہیں ہوئی تھی کہ اسے افیون کی موجودگی کا علم تھا۔ اس کا مطلب یہ تھا کہ یہ معاملہ مزید تحقیق کا متقاضی ہے نہ کہ ایک واضح اور غیر مبہم کیس۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی نوٹ کیا کہ چرس کی برآمدگی کے حوالے سے، جتنی مقدار ملوث تھی اس کے پیش نظر امکان یہی تھا کہ اسے زیادہ سے زیادہ ممکنہ سزا نہیں دی جائے گی، ا
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2019 M L D 1929 [Balochistan] Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch, JJ ABDUL RAHEEM---Applicant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. 78 of 2019, decided on 1st July, 2019. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Bail, grant of---Recovery of narcotics---Proof---Case of further inquiry---Accused was arrested by authorities who recovered 2 kilograms baked Charas from his possession while 3400 grams opium was recovered from rickshaw in which he was travelling---Recovery of two kilograms baked Charas from possession of accused and recovery of 3400 grams opium from rickshaw lacked independent corroboration---Prosecution was yet to prove conscious knowledge of accused about allegedly recovered opium---Case against accused fell within ambit of further inquiry and court while hearing an application of bail was not to keep in view maximum sentence provided by Statute but one which was likely to be entitled in facts and circumstances of case---Accused after facing investigation was already shifted to jail custody thus his further detention did not serve any useful purpose---Bail was allowed in circumstances. Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan v. The State 2012 SCMR 573 rel. Qasim Khan for Applicant. Shams-ud-Din Achakzai, Special Prosecutor, ANF for the State. Date of hearing: 26th June, 2019. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. ---Through this application, the applicant seeks bail in case FIR No.14 of 2018 registered with Police Station, ANF, Quetta on 18.09.2018 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 ("the Act"). Pertinent to mention here that earlier the application for same relief was turned down by the learned Special Court, CNS, Quetta vide order dated 19.02. 2019.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR are that on the stated date time and place the complainant received spy information that applicant and co-accused Hikmatullah are coming in Rickshaw bearing registration No.RB-1047, for selling narcotics to their customers at Railway Patak Excise near Lehri, House, on this information he along with ANF officials proceeded in the official vehicles and reached at Railway Patak and made blockade, meanwhile the Rickshaw bearing No.1047 was attracted, which was intercepted and alighted the applicant along with co-accused. On query, they disclosed their names as Abdul Rahim (applicant) and Hikmatulalh. After the search, 2 kilograms baked charas was allegedly recovered from the applicant and two kilograms of baked charas was allegedly recovered from co- accused Hikmatullah. It is further alleged that on disclosure and pointation of both the accused, 3400, grams wet opium was recovered from beneath the rear seat of Rickshaw.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that if the alleged recovery of narcotics is presumed that it was recovered from personal possession of applicant/accused, he is not likely to be awarded maximum sentence provided by the Statute; that the accused/applicant is in custody since his arrest without any material proceeding in the case; that the applicant/accused after facing the investigation has been shifted to the judicial custody, and he is no more required for further investigation. He, therefore,2019 M L D 1929 https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=201... 1 of 2 2/4/2020, 2:13 PM urged for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.
4. The learned Special Prosecutor ANF strongly opposed the contention and prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Record transpires that the recovery of two kilograms baked charas from possession of the applicant and recovery of 3400 grams opium from the Rickshaw is lacking independent corroboration. The prosecution is yet to prove the conscious knowledge of applicant about the allegedly recovered opium. On the basis of tentative assessment of the material available on record, the case against the applicant falls within the ambit of further inquiry. With regard to recovery of two (2) kilograms charas from the possession of the applicant it is to be appreciated that the quantum of sentence has to be commensurate with the quantum of substance recovered, we doubt the applicant can be awarded maximum sentence for the alleged recovered charas provided by the Statue. It is imperative to mention here that the court while hearing, an application for bail is not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the Statute but the one which is likely to be entailed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance in this regard is placed in the case Jamal- ud-Din alias Zubair Khan v. The State 2012 SCMR 573. The applicant/accused after facing the investigation has already been shifted to the judicial custody, thus his further detention does not serve any useful purpose. For the above reasons, the interim bail granted to the applicant vide our short order dated 3.6.2019 is hereby confirmed. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentive in nature, shall not have any bearings on merits of case. MH/61/Bal. Bail granted. ;2019 M L D 1929 https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=201... 2 of 2 2/4/2020, 2:13 PM