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 PMThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.