Ipxi-Dixit of Police is not binding on courts
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
What was this case about?
Muhammad Tufail was arrested and charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following an FIR registered in October 2009 after police intercepted a car allegedly used to transport narcotics. He applied to the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail.
What did the court find?
The court noted that no one was actually caught in the car when it was stopped, and no witness testified that Tufail was driving it. Nothing was recovered from his direct personal possession. Although the police investigating officer later claimed (in a case diary) that Tufail was driving the car and was linked to the main suspect, the court held that such police opinions are not automatically binding — this is a well-established principle in criminal law. The claim would need to be tested at trial.
The court also pointed out that Tufail's co-accused, Muhammad Tariq, had already been granted bail by the same court in a similar situation, and there was nothing distinguishing Tufail's case from his. For consistency, similar accused persons should be treated similarly.
Why does it matter?
Considering Tufail had already spent months in custody and had no prior criminal record, the court granted him bail, subject to bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with two sureties. The case reinforces two important legal principles: police statements/opinions alone don't bind courts, and courts should maintain consistency when treating co-accused in similar circumstances.
یہ مقدمہ کس بارے میں تھا؟
محمد طفیل کو کنٹرول آف نارکوٹک سبسٹینسز ایکٹ 1997ء کی دفعہ 9(c) کے تحت گرفتار کر کے مقدمہ درج کیا گیا، جب اکتوبر 2009ء میں پولیس نے ایک گاڑی کو روکا جس کے بارے میں الزام تھا کہ اسے منشیات کی ترسیل کے لیے استعمال کیا جا رہا تھا۔ اس نے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کے حصول کے لیے لاہور ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔
عدالت نے کیا پایا؟
عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ جب گاڑی روکی گئی تو اس میں سے کوئی شخص گرفتار نہیں ہوا تھا، اور کسی گواہ نے یہ بیان نہیں دیا کہ طفیل گاڑی چلا رہا تھا۔ اس کے ذاتی قبضے سے بھی کچھ برآمد نہیں ہوا۔ اگرچہ تفتیشی افسر نے بعد میں کیس ڈائری میں یہ دعویٰ کیا کہ طفیل گاڑی چلا رہا تھا اور مرکزی ملزم سے اس کا تعلق تھا، عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ پولیس کی ایسی رائے خودبخود قابلِ قبول نہیں ہوتی — فوجداری قانون میں یہ ایک مستحکم اصول ہے۔ اس دعوے کی جانچ ٹرائ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2011 Cr.C.(Lahore) 802 (DB) Present: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain and Muhammad Anwar-ul-Haq, JJ. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL--Petitioner versus STATE & another--Respondents Crl. Misc. No. 3493-B of 2010, decided on 20.4.2010. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 S. 9(c)--Bail, grant of--Criminal administration of justice that ipxi-dixit of police was not binding upon Court--Case was not distinguishable from his co-accused, who has granted bail by High Court--Rule of consistency come into play--He was behind bars--Previously non-convict--Appropriate case to release him on bail--Bail was accepted. [P. 803] A Mr. Jafar Mehmood Malik, Advocate on behalf of Petitioner. Chaudhry Jamshed Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General for State/Respondent No. 1. Complainant in person. Date of hearing: 20.4.2010. Order Muhammad Tufail petitioner by way of the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1185 registered under Section 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997 with Police Station, Factory Area, Lahore on 11.10.2009.
2. The facts of the case were recorded by us in our earlier order dated 08.03.2010 in Crim. Misc. No. 2140-B of 2010 of his co-accused Muhammad Tariq. We, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that it is clear from the narration of the FIR that no one was apprehended from the car being used for the transportation of the narcotics. It is also clear from the same that there were many persons in the car, when it was intercepted by the police party at the picket point.
4. There is no statement of any PW that he was found on the driving seat of that car. It is also every body's case that nothing was recovered from his direct personal possession.
5. It may be mentioned here that the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted before us that as per the case Diary No. 18, recorded on 11.02.2010, by Muhammad Asghar, SI/I.O. in the investigation, it has been found that in fact he was driving the car and was the associate of Farooq @ Farooqi, the main person in the crime. He has also admitted that such is the opinion of the said Investigating Officer. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has read out before us the said case diary. It starts like this that during his " " , such position has come to the surface. Such opinion of the Investigating Officer is open to question to be seen at trial.
6. However, it would be relevant to mention here that it is well settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that ipxi-dixit of police is not binding upon Court.
7. We, thus find that his case is not distinguishable from his co-accused Tariq, who has granted bail by this Court vide the aforesaid order. The rule of consistency, thus also comes into play in his case.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars since 16.10.2009 and a previous non-convict. We, therefore, in such circumstances, find it an appropriate case to release him on bail. In this view of the matter, we accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousands only) with, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (S.L.) Bail accepted.