Kaazim Hussain V. The state,
Bench: Rozi Khan Barach
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Kaazim Hussain who was arrested in Balochistan after police allegedly found 1600 grams of charas (hashish) and 200 grams of ice (crystal meth) in his possession during a motorcycle check. He was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and after his bail application was rejected by the trial court, he approached the Balochistan High Court seeking post-arrest bail.
His lawyer argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated, and pointed out that no independent or private witnesses were present during the recovery, only police officials.
The High Court rejected this argument and refused bail. It held that the law governing narcotics cases (Section 25 of the CNS Act) specifically excludes the usual requirement under Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code to involve independent witnesses during searches. The court also noted that ordinary citizens are often reluctant to get involved as witnesses in criminal cases, so their absence doesn't automatically make the prosecution's case weak. Police witnesses, the court said, are presumed credible unless shown to be lying or acting with malicious intent.
Given the large quantity of narcotics recovered and the serious, "heinous" nature of drug offences, the court ruled that the accused did not qualify for bail. This judgment reinforces that in narcotics cases, courts apply a stricter standard before granting bail, and police testimony alone can be sufficient to sustain a case at this stage.
یہ مقدمہ کاظم حسین نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق ہے جسے بلوچستان میں اس وقت گرفتار کیا گیا جب پولیس نے موٹر سائیکل کی تلاشی کے دوران مبینہ طور پر اس کے قبضے سے سولہ سو گرام چرس اور دو سو گرام آئس (کرسٹل میتھ) برآمد کی۔ اس پر کنٹرول آف نارکوٹک سبسٹینسز ایکٹ 1997 کی دفعہ 9(سی) کے تحت مقدمہ درج کیا گیا، اور جب ٹرائل کورٹ نے اس کی ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد کر دی تو اس نے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کے لیے بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔
اس کے وکیل نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ ملزم بے گناہ ہے اور اسے جھوٹے مقدمے میں پھنسایا گیا ہے، اور یہ نشاندہی کی کہ برآمدگی کے وقت کوئی آزاد یا نجی گواہ موجود نہیں تھا، صرف پولیس اہلکار موجود تھے۔
ہائی کورٹ نے اس دلیل کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے ضمانت دینے سے انکار کر دیا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ منشیات کے مقدمات پر لاگو قانون (سی این ایس ایکٹ کی دفعہ 25) تلاشی کے د
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2019 Y L R 2717 [Balochistan] Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ KAAZIM HUSSAIN---Applicant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No.90 of 2019, decided on 30th July, 2019. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 25 & 51---Recovery of narcotics---Bail, refusal of---Police witnesses---Effect---Charas weighing 1600 grams and ice (Sheesha) weighing 200 grams was recovered from accused---Plea raised by accused was that no public witnesses were associated to recovery proceedings---Validity---Any person accused of spreading a deadly poison, i.e., narcotics, in any society was not type of person who could qualify for grant of discretionary relief unless such person had demonstrated that he was entitled to grant of bail in view of principles contained in S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Members of public were reluctant to offer themselves as witnesses in criminal cases and in such circumstances no adverse inference could be drawn against prosecution for not associating such like persons as witnesses---Members of police force were competent witnesses in eyes of law and could be credited with veracity unless it was demonstrated that they were false witnesses who had maliciously accused an innocent person of commission of offence for ulterior motives---Bail was dismissed in circumstances. Socha Gul v. The State 2015 SCMR 1077 and Afzaal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCMR 573 rel. Amanullah Tareen for Applicant. Ameer Hamza Mengal, Deputy Prosecutor General ("DPG") for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd July, 2019. ORDER ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.--- Through instant application, the applicant/ accused seeks post arrest bail in case crime No.58 of 2019 registered at Police Station Bela under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter "the Act"). Earlier bail application filed by the applicant/accused before the Court of Special Judge, CNS Lasbela at Hub was rejected vide order dated 06.07.2019 (hereinafter "the trial Court").
2. Brief facts of the prosecution's case as disclosed in FIR No.58 of 2019 are that on 28.06.2019 the complainant SI/SHO Muhammad Jan of Bela police station received information that one person namely Kazim Hussain Pathan was doing business of narcotics drugs on motorcycle and was coming from Bela- cross towards the city. On receipt of said information, a raiding party was formed consisting of ASI Abdul Hakeem, Head Constable Qadir Bakhsh, Head Constable Muhammad Yousuf under the supervision of SI/SHO Muhammad Jan. They started checking and at about 10:30 hours they found one person sitting on a motorcycle, while one shopper was hanging on the handle of his motorcycle. They apprehended him and opened the said shopper wherefrom Charas was recovered, which was weighed with the scale, and found to be 1600 grams, whereas from personal search of the accused 200 grams of Ice (Sheesha) was also recovered. The recovered contraband were sealed on the spot for purpose of chemical analysis. Thereafter the police lodged the FIR under Section 9(c) of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and has2019 Y L R 2717 https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=201... 1 of 2 2/4/2020, 2:35 PM falsely been implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel further argued that despite availability of a large number of people, no private person was associated during recovery proceedings. He lastly submitted that it is a case of further inquiry and therefore applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG opposed the contentions so raised by learned counsel for the applicant/accused and contended that a huge quantity of Charas and Ice (Sheesha) were recovered from the applicant/accused. He further submitted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. It may be observed that the applicant was apprehended red-handed, while in possession of 1600 grams of Charas and 200 grams of Ice (Sheesha). The offence, for which the applicant/accused has been charged, falls under section 9(c) of the Act, as the quantity of Charas recovered from the applicant/accused is 1600 grams and Ice (Sheesha) is 200 grams. It is pertinent to mention here that offences punishable under the CNS Act, 1997 are heinous in nature and considered to be offences against the society at large, and it is for such reason that the statute itself has provided a note of caution under section 51 of the CNS Act, 1997 before enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary course, when we refer to the standards set out under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under section 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997. Needless to mention here that a person accused of spreading a deadly poison i.e. the narcotics, in any society is not the kind of person who qualifies for the grant of any discretionary relief unless such a person could demonstrate that he was entitled to the grant of bail in view of the principles contained in section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. Reverting to the arguments of non-performance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C., section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes applicability of section 103, Cr.P.C. Reliance is safely made in the case of Socha Gul v. The State 2015 SCMR 1077. Even otherwise, the members of the public are reluctant to offer themselves as witnesses in criminal cases and that in the circumstances no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution for not associating such like persons as witnesses. Needless to say that the members of the Police force are competent witnesses in the eyes of law and could be credited with veracity unless it could be demonstrated that they are false witnesses and had maliciously accused an innocent person of the commission of an offence for ulterior motives. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Afzaal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCMR 573.
7. For whatever has been mentioned above, we have reached at the irresistible conclusion that the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. Before parting, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever. MH/70/Bal. Bail refused. ;2019 Y L R 2717 https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=201... 2 of 2 2/4/2020, 2:35 PM