PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 252
[Lahore High Court Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 7321-B of 2025, decided on 20.8.2025.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
گرفتاری ضمانت ، کی منظوری-- مزید تفتیش-"ہیروئن" کی بازیابی کا الزام-- پولیس فورس کے اس طرز عمل نے ان کے خلاف تعصب کا اظہار کیا ہے اور اس معاملے میں درخواست گزار کی شمولیت کے حوالے سے ایک شک پیدا ہوا ہے ، جس کا فائدہ اس مرحلے پر بھی درخواست گزار کو دیا جا سکتا ہے ۔ - پولیس فورس کے اس طرز عمل نے ان کے خلاف تعصب کا اظہار کیا ہے اور اس معاملے میں درخواست گزار کی شمولیت کے حوالے سے شک پیدا ہوا ہے ، جس کا فائدہ اس مرحلے پر بھی درخواست گزار کو دیا جا سکتا ہے ۔ --- ایڈیشنل پراسیکیوٹر جنرل نے مزید کہا کہ درخواست گزار کی جانب سے کوڈ آف کرمنل پروسیجر 1898 کی دفعہ 497 کے تحت دائر کی گئی درخواست کو ہائی کورٹ نے 04.08.2025 کے حکم نامے کے ذریعے درخواست گزار کے وکیل کی عدم موجودگی کی وجہ سے خارج کر دیا تھا ، اس لیے یہ درخواست قابل سماعت نہیں ہے ۔ اس نکتے پر قانون واضح ہے کہ مقدمے کی اہلیت پر کسی بھی دلیل کو حل کرنے یا سننے سے پہلے ضمانت کے لیے پہلے کی درخواست کو واپس لینے کا آسان اشارہ اسی راحت کے لیے بعد کی درخواست دائر کرنے سے نہیں روکتا ہے ۔-تفتیشی درخواست گزار مکمل ہے اور اس کے شخص کو مزید تفتیش کے لیے مزید ضرورت نہیں ہے ، اس لیے اس کی مسلسل قید اس مرحلے پر کوئی فائدہ مند مقصد پورا نہیں کرے گی ۔ درخواست گزار کا معاملہ سیکشن 497 کے ذیلی سیکشن (2) کے تحت آنے والی مزید تحقیقات میں سے ایک بن جاتا ہے ، Cr.P.C-مبینہ جرم کے لئے درخواست گزار کی اہلیت کا تعین ٹرائل کورٹ کے ذریعہ اس سے پہلے پیش کردہ مواد کی ثبوت کی قیمت کی چھان بین کے بعد کیا جائے گا-تب تک ، درخواست گزار کا معاملہ سیکشن 497 (2) Cr.P.C کے دائرہ کار میں ہوگا ۔ درخواست گزار کے جرم کی مزید تحقیقات کا مطالبہ-ضمانت کی اجازت ۔
----S. 497(2)--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), S. 9(1)6--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Recovery of “Heroin”-- This conduct of policing force has laid bare bias of them and a doubt has arisen with regard to involvement of petitioner in case, benefit of which doubt can be extended to petitioner even at this stage--This conduct of policing force has laid bare bias of them and a doubt has arisen with regard to involvement of petitioner in case, benefit of which doubt can be extended to petitioner even at this stage--Additional Prosecutor General further stated that earlier petition filed by petitioner under Section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was dismissed by High Court vide order dated 04.08.2025 due to absence of counsel for petitioner, hence, this petition is not maintainable--The law on this point is clear that withdrawal simpliciter of an earlier application for bail before addressing or hearing any argument on merits of case does not preclude filing of a subsequent application for same relief--The investigation qua petitioner is complete and his person is no longer required for further investigation, therefore, his continued incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage--The case of petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C--Liability of petitioner for offence alleged would be determined by trial Court after sifting evidentiary worth of material produced before same--Till then, case of petitioner would be within domain of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into petitioner’s guilt--Bail allowed. [Para 5 & 6] B & C
PLD 2022 SC 112; PLD 2014 SC 241 & PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 8.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
ضمانت-"معقول بنیاد"-حقائق اور حالات ضمانت کی درخواست پر غور کرنے والی عدالت کو مقدمے کے حقائق اور حالات کو عارضی طور پر دیکھنا پڑتا ہے اور ایک بار جب یہ نتیجہ اخذ کرنا پڑتا ہے کہ یہ یقین کرنے کے لیے کوئی معقول بنیاد موجود نہیں ہے کہ ملزم نے ناقابل ضمانت جرم کیا ہے ، تو اسے ملزم کو ضمانت پر رہا کرنے کا صوابدیدی اختیار ہے ۔) اس بات کا پتہ لگانے کے لیے کہ آیا معقول بنیاد موجود ہے یا نہیں ، عدالت کو خود کو استغاثہ کے ذریعے اس کے سامنے پیش کردہ مواد تک محدود رکھنا چاہیے تاکہ یہ معلوم کیا جا سکے کہ ملزم کے خلاف کچھ قابل فہم ثبوت دستیاب ہیں ، جو اگر بلا روک ٹوک چھوڑ دیا جائے تو جرم کے نتیجے کا باعث بن سکتے ہیں ۔ معقول بنیادوں کو محض الزامات یا شکوک و شبہات کے ساتھ الجھن میں نہیں ڈالنا چاہیے اور نہ ہی جانچ شدہ اور ثابت شدہ شواہد کے ساتھ ، جو قانون کسی شخص کو کسی جرم کے لیے سزا دینے کا مطالبہ کرتا ہے ۔
----S. 497--Bail--“Reasonable ground”--Facts and circumstances--A Court considering a bail application has to tentatively look at facts and circumstances of case and once it comes to inference that no reasonable ground exists for believing that accused has committed a non-bailable offence, it has discretion to release accused on bail) In order to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist or not, Court should confine itself to material placed before it by prosecution to see whether some perceptible evidence is available against accused, which if left unrebutted, may lead to an inference of guilt--Reasonable grounds are not to be confused with mere allegations or suspicions nor with tested and proven evidence, which law requires for a person’s conviction for an offence. [Para 4] A
Rana Jahanzaib Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Umar Farooq Khan, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab for State.
Date of hearing: 20.8.2025.
Order
Through the instant petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., read with Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 the petitioner namely Muhammad Aslam seeks post-arrest bail in the case F.I.R No. 1294 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025, registered in respect of an offence under Section 9(1), entry No. 6 of Column No. (1), entry (c) of Column No. (2) read with Column No. (3) of the TABLE given under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022 at the Police Station Alpa, District Multan.
2. As per the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 23.06.2025, he was apprehended by the police and 1100 grams of “Heroin” was allegedly recovered from his possession.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. A Court considering a bail application has to tentatively look at the facts and circumstances of the case and once it comes to the inference that no reasonable ground exists for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, it has the discretion to release the accused on bail. In order to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist or not, the Court should confine itself to the material placed before it by the prosecution to see whether some perceptible evidence is available against the accused, which if left unrebutted, may lead to an inference of guilt. Reasonable grounds are not to be confused with mere allegations or suspicions nor with tested and proven evidence, which the law requires for a person’s conviction for an offence. The term “reason to believe” can be classified at a higher pedestal than mere suspicion and allegation. A perusal of the record reveals that though the petitioner had been arrested by Hashim Ali, ASI, who had with him a mobile phone device having a camera module, the phone number of which mobile phone device has been mentioned in the F.I.R, still neither Hashim Ali, ASI nor the Investigating Officer of the case made any effort to record the incident of arrest of the petitioner and the recovery from him. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order 1984 permits the use of any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques, however, the policing authorities continue to not use the said modern devices and techniques resulting in loss of credible evidence. Had the complainant or the Investigating Officer of the case recorded the incident of recovery from the petitioner, the said video footage would have provided the best evidence against the petitioner, however, for reasons best known to the complainant and the Investigating Officer of the case, the cameras, though available with the complainant and the Investigating Officer of the case, were not used for the said purpose. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Zahid Sarfraz Gill vs. The State” (PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 08) has observed as under:
“We are aware that Section 25 of the Act excludes the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which requires two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to be associated when search is made. However, we fail to understand why the police and members of the Anti-Narcotics Force (‘ANF’) do not record or photograph when search, seizure and/or arrest is made. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 specifically permits the use of any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques, and its Article 165 overrides all other laws.”
6. In narcotic cases the prosecution witnesses usually are ANF personnel or policemen who surely would have a cell phone with an in-built camera. In respect of those arrested with narcotic substances generally there are only a few witnesses, and most, if not all, are government servants. However, trials are unnecessarily delayed, and resultantly the accused seek bail first in the trial Court which if not granted to them is then filed in the High Court and there too if it is declined, petitions seeking bail are then filed in this Court. If the police and ANF were to use their mobile phone cameras to record and/or take photographs of the search, seizure and arrest, it would be useful evidence to establish the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the possession by the accused of the narcotic substances, the search and its seizure. It may also prevent false allegations being levelled against ANF/police that the narcotic substance was foisted upon them for some ulterior motives”
The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the recent case of “Muhammad Abid Hussain vs. The State and another” (Criminal Petition No. 146 of 2025) has observed as under:--
“6. In the present case neither any video in the shape of recording and photographs of the alleged recovery has been collected by the police nor any private witness from the locality was associated to prove the alleged recovery from the possession of the petitioner. As stated above, the use of modern devices during recoveries is not merely a procedural formality but a crucial safeguard to protect innocent persons from potential police atrocities. It provides an objective and unbiased account of the recovery process, reducing the risk of false implications and ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected. In the cases of stringent punishments, the prosecution must present clear, cogent and reliable evidence to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of video evidence and independent witnesses, the prosecution’s case relies heavily on the testimony of the police officers involved in the raid, which is insufficient to meet the required standard of proof.
7. We strongly recognize the need to combat the menace of narcotics, however, it must also be ensured that the rights of the accused are protected. The failure to record the recovery on video, non-association of private witnesses and failure to adhere clear judicial directives, tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner.
This conduct of the policing force has laid bare the bias of them and a doubt has arisen with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the case, the benefit of which doubt can be extended to the petitioner even at this stage. This conduct of the policing force has laid bare the bias of them and a doubt has arisen with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the case, the benefit of which doubt can be extended to the petitioner even at this stage. The learned Additional Prosecutor General further stated that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bearing Crl. Misc. No. 6686-B of 2025 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025 due to the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence, this petition is not maintainable. The law on this point is clear that the withdrawal simpliciter of an earlier application for bail before addressing or hearing any argument on the merits of the case does not preclude the filing of a subsequent application for the same relief. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Nadeem Samson versus The State and others” (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 112) has held as under:
“7. There is no mention of arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner in the order of the High Court whereby the first bail petition of the petitioner had been dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the trial Court for expeditious conclusion of the trial. As the presumption is always in favour of the negative (semper praesumitur pro negante), we are to assume, and proceed on that assumption, that arguments had not been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner before the High Court in that bail petition Withdrawal of an earlier bail petition before addressing any argument on the merits of the case, as held by this Court in the Nazir Ahmed case, does not preclude filing of a subsequent bail petition for the same relief on the same grounds before the same Court. Therefore, we see no bar on the petitioner to agitate statutory ground of delay in conclusion of his trial, which was available to him at the time of withdrawal of first ball petition, before the High Court in the second bail petition.”
Reference can be made to the case of Nazir Ahmed and another v. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 241) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:--
“(v) Withdrawal simpliciter of an earlier application for bail before addressing or hearing of any argument on the merits of the case does not preclude filing of a subsequent application for the same relief before the same Court and its decision by such Court on the merits of the case. In all cases of withdrawal of such an application the Court must faithfully record in its order as to whether withdrawal of the application had been requested and allowed after addressing and hearing of some or all the arguments on the merits of the case or withdrawal of the application had been requested and allowed before addressing and hearing of any argument on the merits of the case.”
The investigation qua the petitioner is complete and his person is no longer required for further investigation, therefore, his continued incarceration would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Liability of the petitioner for the offence alleged would be determined by the learned trial Court after sifting the evidentiary worth of the material produced before the same. Till then, the case of the petitioner would be within the domain of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into the petitioner’s guilt.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,100,000/- (Rupees one million and one hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit. Additionally, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of eleven months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf causes delay in the conclusion of the trial or if the petitioner misuses the concession of bail in any manner or if the petitioner absents himself from the learned trial Court, then the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with the law.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments