Ghulam Qadir V. The State,
Bench: Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involves Ghulam Qadir, who was arrested and charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after police allegedly recovered 1130 grams of charas (cannabis) from him near Uthal, Balochistan. He applied for post-arrest bail after the trial court had already rejected his request.
His lawyer argued that he had no prior criminal record, that the investigation was complete, and that he was no longer needed for further inquiry. The State opposed bail, arguing he had been caught red-handed with the narcotics.
The Balochistan High Court examined the First Information Report (FIR) and found a significant flaw: no sealed parcel of the recovered narcotics had been prepared at the scene, and the FIR did not even mention whether a sample was taken from the alleged drugs for testing. The court held that this omission created doubt about the prosecution's case, and such doubt, even at the bail stage, should benefit the accused. It relied on a Supreme Court precedent confirming that benefit of doubt can be extended at the bail stage.
Concluding that this amounted to a case requiring further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court granted Ghulam Qadir bail, subject to sureties totaling Rs. 200,000. The court clarified its observations were tentative and would not affect the trial's outcome.
This case highlights how procedural lapses in evidence handling, like failing to secure and sample seized narcotics, can be crucial in securing bail even in serious drug cases.
یہ مقدمہ غلام قادر سے متعلق ہے، جسے کنٹرول آف نارکوٹک سبسٹینسز ایکٹ 1997 کے تحت گرفتار کر کے چالان کیا گیا تھا۔ پولیس کا دعویٰ تھا کہ اوتھل، بلوچستان کے قریب سے اس کے قبضے سے 1130 گرام چرس برآمد ہوئی تھی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ کی جانب سے ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد ہونے کے بعد اس نے گرفتاری کے بعد کی ضمانت کے لیے درخواست دائر کی۔
اس کے وکیل کا موقف تھا کہ ملزم کا کوئی سابقہ مجرمانہ ریکارڈ نہیں ہے، تفتیش مکمل ہو چکی ہے، اور مزید تحقیقات کے لیے اس کی ضرورت باقی نہیں رہی۔ ریاست کی جانب سے ضمانت کی مخالفت کی گئی اور موقف اپنایا گیا کہ ملزم کو منشیات کے ساتھ رنگے ہاتھوں پکڑا گیا تھا۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے ایف آئی آر کا جائزہ لیا تو ایک اہم خامی سامنے آئی: موقع پر برآمد شدہ منشیات کی مہر بند پڑیا تیار نہیں کی گئی تھی، اور ایف آئی آر میں یہ بھی درج نہیں تھا کہ مبینہ منشیات میں سے جانچ کے لیے نمونہ لی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2022 Y L R 2413 [Balochistan] Before Rozi Khan Barrech and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, JJ GHULAM QADIR ---Applicant Versus The STATE ---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. 80 of 2022, decided on 28th July, 2022. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497 --- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c) ---Possession of narcotics ---Bail, grant of ---Failure to prepare parcel on the spot ---Effect ---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 1130 grams of charas ---No parcel w as prepared at the spot ---First Information Report was also silent about the fact whether any sample was obtained from the allegedly recovered narcotics ---Such omission on the part of complainant had created doubt about the prosecution story, benefit where of was available to the accused even at bail stage ---Accused had made out a case of further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. -- -Accused was admitted to post -arrest bail. Ihtisham Ali Cheema v. The State 2022 SCMR 624 rel. Talat Waheed for Applicant. Abdu l Kareem Malghani, State Counsel. Date of hearing: 22nd July, 2022. ORDER MUHAMMAD AAMIR NAWAZ RANA, J. ---Through this application, the applicant Ghulam Qadir son of Ali Muhammad has applied for post -arrest bail in the case FIR No.52/2022 under section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter "CNS Act") lodged at Police Station Saddar Uthal District Lasbela on 13.06.2022 by the complainant SI/SHO Muhammad Amin Sasoli of Police Station Saddar Uthal.
2. The perusal of aforesaid FIR reveals that on spy information, to the effect that the applicant, being involved in business of selling narcotic substance was arrested and on his personal search cannabis (Charas) was recovered; on weighing, the same was found 1130 grams.
3. The applican t had applied for bail after arrest before the trial Court i.e. Special Judge CNS/Additional Sessions Judge, Uthal which had been rejected vide order dated 23.06.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the applicant has falsely been involved in the instant case; that there is no previous criminal record of the applicant regarding any criminal activity. Apart from that learned counsel stated that since investigation has been completed and the applicant has been shifted to Central Jail Gaddani and is not required for further investigation, therefore the applicant is entitled for concession of grant of bail.
5. On contrary, learned State counsel strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that since the applicant has been ca ught red -handed on spot having exclusive possession of narcotic substance (Charas), therefore the applicant is not entitled for concession of grant of bail. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned State counsel and perused the avail able record.
6. As per contents of FIR, allegedly the applicant was arrested from Abdullah Stop Utahl and narcotics (Charas) weighing 1130 grams was recovered from him but surprisingly, no parcel was prepared at the spot and the FIR is also silent about th e fact that whether any sample was obtained from the alleged recovered narcotics (Charas), or not? The said omission on the part of the complainant creates doubt upon the prosecution story, event at bail stage, if any doubt is observed; the benefit whereof should be given to the accused. In the above regard, while dealing with the question of benefit of doubt at bail stage, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled as "Ihtisham Ali Cheema v. The State1(1)" has held as under: "------ . It is established principle of law that the benefit of doubt can even be extended at bail stage. -----".
7. Considering the contents of FIR, in which no proceedings regarding preparation of parcel or obtaining samples are mentioned, without further dilating upon the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the case of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C has been made out in favour of the applicant. In view of the above factual and legal position, the applicant Ghulam Qadir son of Ali Muhammad is admitted to post -arrest bail in case FIR No.52/2022 under section 9(c) of CNS Act lodged with Police Station Saddar Uthal District Lasbela subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/ - (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with P.R bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. The observations made herein -above are tentative in nature and same shall not influence merits of the case pending before trial Court in any manner. SA/122/Bal. Bail granted.