Abdul Ghafoor and another V. The State,
Bench: Rozi Khan Barach
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved two men, Abdul Ghafoor and Sher Ahmed, arrested together in a car after police found 2 kilograms of charas and 100 grams of heroin hidden beneath the driving seat. They were charged under Pakistan's narcotics law and sought bail after a lower court had already refused it.
The Balochistan High Court treated the two applicants differently based on their roles. Abdul Ghafoor was the driver of the vehicle at the time of recovery. The court held that a driver cannot escape responsibility when contraband is found being transported in the vehicle he is driving, relying on an earlier precedent. Finding a strong prima facie case against him, the court refused his bail.
Sher Ahmed, however, was merely a passenger sitting in the front seat. He was not driving, and the drugs were not found in his exclusive possession. The court found his situation required further inquiry at trial, a recognized ground for bail, and noted he had already been in custody since February 2020. He was granted bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 200,000.
The judgment matters because it illustrates how courts distinguish between a vehicle's driver and its passengers when drugs are discovered in hidden locations within a car, basing bail decisions on possession and control rather than mere presence. It also reaffirms that bail observations are preliminary and do not bind the trial court's final decision on the merits.
یہ مقدمہ دو افراد، عبدالغفور اور شیر احمد سے متعلق ہے، جنہیں ایک گاڑی سے اکٹھے اس وقت گرفتار کیا گیا جب پولیس کو ڈرائیونگ سیٹ کے نیچے چھپائی گئی 2 کلوگرام چرس اور 100 گرام ہیروئن برآمد ہوئی۔ ان پر پاکستان کے منشیات کے قانون کے تحت مقدمہ درج کیا گیا اور انہوں نے ضمانت کے لیے درخواست دی جبکہ ماتحت عدالت پہلے ہی ان کی ضمانت مسترد کر چکی تھی۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے دونوں درخواست گزاروں کے ساتھ ان کے کردار کی بنیاد پر مختلف سلوک کیا۔ عبدالغفور برآمدگی کے وقت گاڑی چلا رہا تھا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ جب کسی گاڑی میں منشیات کی نقل و حمل کے دوران برآمدگی ہو تو ڈرائیور اس کی ذمہ داری سے بری الذمہ قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا، اور اس ضمن میں ایک سابقہ نظیر پر انحصار کیا گیا۔ اس کے خلاف ایک مضبوط بظاہر مقدمہ پائے جانے پر عدالت نے اس کی ضمانت مسترد کر دی۔
دوسری جانب شیر احمد محض اگلی نشست پ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2020 P Cr. L J 1512 [Balochistan] Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ ABDUL GHAFOOR and another ---Applicants Versus The STATE--- Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. 20 of 2020, decided on 18th March, 2020. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ------- S. 497--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c) ---Recovery of narcotic substance ---Bail, refusal of ---Driver of vehicle ---Chars weighing 2 kilograms and heroin weighing 100 grams were recovered from ben eath the driving seat of vehicle which was being driven by accused ---Effect ---Driver could not be absolved from the liability, if contraband was transported in the vehicle being driven by him ---High Court declined to grant bail on merit lest it could cause prejudice to other side ---On tentative assessment of record there existed prima facie case against accused ---Bail was refused, in circumstances. Haroon Khan v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 438 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497(2) ---Con trol of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c) ---Recovery of narcotic substance--- Bail, grant of ---Passenger of vehicle--- Case of further inquiry ---Charas weighing 2 kilograms and heroin weighing 100 grams were recovered from beneath the driving se at of vehicle in which accused was sitting on front ---Effect ---When accused was arrested he was not driving the car nor any narcotics was recovered from his exclusive possession rather he was sitting on the front seat of the car ---Case of accused was one o f further inquiry ---Bail was allowed, in circumstances. Hussain Ullah v. The State 2019 SCMR 1651 rel. Inayatullah Kasi for Applicants. Yahya Baloch, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 16th March, 2020. ORDER ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---Applicants Abdul Ghafoor son of Rustam and Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad seek bail in case FIR No. 33 of 2020 dated 23.02.2020 under section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Hub City District Lasbela. They have been refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - II/Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances Hub vide order dated 04.03.2020; hence, the instant application for the same purpose.
2. As per contents of FIR, the local police of Police Sta tion Hub City, District Lasbela, during area Gasht received spy information that two persons namely Abdul Ghafoor and Sher Ahmed are doing drug's business in an Alto car bearing No.AUH -691. On the said information the police officials during checking on ma in RCD road signaled the said vehicle to stop. On inquiry the driver disclosed his name as Abdul Ghafoor while the person sitting next to the driver disclosed his name as Sher Ahmed. Search of the vehicle lead to recovery of 2 kilograms of Charas and 100 grams of heroin powder from beneath the driving seat. The accused persons were arrested on the spot and the case under the above section of law was registered against them.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned APG and have perused the record available on the case file.
4. Scanning of the record reflects that charas weighing 2 kilograms and heroin weighing 100 grams were recovered from beneath the driving seat of the vehicle, which was being driven by applicant/accused Abdul Ghafoor son of Rustam. It is now settled that driver cannot be absolved from the liability, if contraband are being transported in the vehicle being driven by him. In this behalf reference may be made to the case reported as Haroon Khan v. The State (2017 PC r.LJ 438). Under such circumstances the court normally and ordinarily avoids to grant bail on merit lest it may cause prejudice to the other side. Tentative assessment of the record leads us to the conclusion that there exists a prima -facie non - bailable case against the applicant Abdul Ghafoor son of Rustam. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage and to his extent the instant application is dismissed.
5. So far as the case of applicant/co -accused Sher Ahmed is concerned, after perusal of the record it has been observed by us that when he was arrested by the police he was not driving the car nor any narcotics were recovered from his exclusive possession rather he was sitting on the front seat of the car. In such view of the circ umstances the case of the applicant Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad becomes one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Hussain Ullah v The State (2019 SCMR 1651). He is behind the bars since 23.02.2020 and nothing is to be recovered from him. In this backdrop, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping him incarcerated for an indefinite period.
6. For what has been discussed above the instant application to the extent of applicant /accused Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad is accepted. Consequently, applicant/accused Sher Ahmed son of Haji Fateh Muhammad is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/ - with PR bond of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. It goes without saying that the above observations are tentative in nature for purpose of decision on this application alone, which should not be used for influencing the adjudication of the case by any party. Obviously, the trial court has to decide the case upon its own merits after application of judicial mind and independent conscience to the facts and circumstances of the case. MH/53/Bal. Order accordingly.