PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 251
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
SHAH NAWAZ--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 9569-B of 2024, decided on 5.12.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
کنٹرول آف نارکوٹک سبسٹینس ایکٹ ،-ضمانت ، گرانٹ-- مزید تفتیش-- معقول وجوہات-- 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 ۔ "یقین کرنے کی وجہ" کی اصطلاح کو محض شک اور الزام سے زیادہ اونچے مقام پر درجہ بند کیا جا سکتا ہے ۔ اگرچہ درخواست گزار کو اے ایس آئی نے گرفتار کیا تھا ، جس کے پاس موبائل فون ڈیوائس تھا جس میں کیمرہ ماڈیول تھا ، فون نمبر جس کا موبائل فون ڈیوائس کا ذکر ایف آئی آر میں کیا گیا ہے ، پھر بھی نہ تو اے ایس آئی اور نہ ہی کیس کے تفتیشی افسر نے درخواست گزار کی گرفتاری اور اس سے بازیابی کے واقعے کو ریکارڈ کرنے کی کوئی کوشش کی ۔ حکم نامے 1984 کا آرٹیکل 164 کسی بھی ایسے ثبوت کے استعمال کی اجازت دیتا ہے جو جدید آلات یا تکنیکوں کی وجہ سے دستیاب ہو سکتا ہے ۔ تاہم ، پولیس حکام جدید آلات اور تکنیکوں کا استعمال جاری نہیں رکھتے ہیں جس کے نتیجے میں قابل اعتماد ثبوت ضائع ہو جاتے ہیں ۔ اگر شکایت کنندہ یا کیس کے تفتیشی افسر نے درخواست گزار سے وصولی کا واقعہ ریکارڈ کیا ہوتا ، تو کہا کہ ویڈیو فوٹیج درخواست گزار کے خلاف بہترین ثبوت فراہم کرتی ، تاہم ، شکایت کنندہ اور کیس کے تفتیشی افسر کو سب سے زیادہ معلوم وجوہات کی بناء پر ، کیمرے ، اگرچہ شکایت کنندہ اور شادی کے تفتیشی افسر کے پاس دستیاب ہیں ، مذکورہ مقصد کے لیے استعمال نہیں کیے گئے تھے ۔ درخواست گزار کا معاملہ سیکشن 497 ، ضابطہ فوجداری کے ذیلی سیکشن (2) کے تحت آنے والی مزید تحقیقات میں سے ایک بن جاتا ہے-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 جانچ پڑتال کے بعد کیا جائے گا-تب تک ، درخواست گزار کا معاملہ سیکشن 497 (2) ضابطہ فوجداری 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. 51--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Reasonable grounds--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--The term “reason to believe” can be classified at a higher pedestal than mere suspicion and allegation--Though petitioner had been arrested by ASI, who had with him a mobile phone device having a camera module, phone number of which mobile phone device has been mentioned in F.I.R, still neither ASI nor Investigating Officer of case made any effort to record incident of arrest of petitioner and recovery from him--Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order 1984 permits use of any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques however, policing authorities continue to not use said modern devices and techniques resulting in loss of credible evidence--Had complainant or Investigating Officer of case recorded incident of recovery from petitioner, said video footage would have provided best evidence against petitioner, however, for reasons best known to complainant and Investigating Officer of case, cameras, though available with complainant and Investigating Officer of wedse, were not used for said purpose--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 4] A & B
PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 8.
Mr. Muhammad Bilal Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Ansar Yasin, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 5.12.2024.
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 Shah Nawaz seeks post-arrest bail in the case F.I.R No. 2178 of 2024 dated 18.10.2024, 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 Multan Cantt., District Multan.
2. As per the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 18.10.2024, he was apprehended by the police and 1025 grams of “Heroin” was allegedly recovered from his possession.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with heir 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 Mian Muhammad Irfan, 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 Mian Muhammad Irfan, 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 recent 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.”
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 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. 1,400,000/- (Rupees one million and four 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 accepted
0 Comments