Salman Hamid vs State S — 2024 YLR 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Salman Hamid VS State S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(1)(6)(e) & 15---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Petitioner was charged for possessing five kilograms heroin---Record showed that narcotic substance was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner---Narration of the FIR disclosed that recovery of narcotic substance was effected from petitioner's co-accused---Petitioner had been involved in the case on the statement of co-accused, which was inadmissible in evidence and could not be relied upon---Petitioner was arrested one day after registration of FIR by the ANF Officials but the fact remained that the contraband was not consciously/actively in possession of the petitioner---Prosecution was duty bound to prove that the accused was knowingly in control of something in the circumstances, which showed that he was assenting to being in control of it---No evidence except the oral assertion of the prosecution was there that petitioner facilitated in supply of heroin---No evidence was on file against the petitioner that he had any nexus with the recovered heroin---So far as sale and recovery of drones from the petitioner was concerned, prosecution had failed to prove that sale of drone was prohibited in Pakistan and the petitioner was not legally competent to do the business of same---Petitioner had been made accused in this case merely on the basis of sale of drones to main accused which was allegedly being used by him for the supply of narcotics to his customers---Investigating Officer recorded first confessional statement of co-accused on 28.02.2024 in line with the story of crime report---In that statement co-accused had not stated that he purchased drone from petitioner but on the following day, his second confessional statement was recorded during the course of investigation wherein he simply stated that recovered drone was purchased from a shop owned by the petitioner---In his second confessional statement co-accused had not stated that petitioner was in the knowledge that co-accused purchased drone from his shop for the purpose of supply of narcotics or the petitioner was in connivance with him in the illegal business of narcotic substances---Investigating Officer of the case had travelled beyond his jurisdiction and illegally arrested the petitioner and thereafter took into possession drones from his shop without lawful authority---If such practice was allowed to continue, then not a single citizen could run any lawful business---Another crippling feature of the case which could not be lost sight of was that it was nowhere mentioned in the prosecution's case that the petitioner had some direct relation with the narcotic drugs or otherwise dealt with them---Question as to whether the petitioner had the conscious knowledge that sold out drone was to be used for the supply of narcotic substances to its customers by the co-accused would be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence and at this stage applicability of section 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, against the petitioner was doubtful in nature because no such evidence was available in that respect---Investigation of the case was complete and the petitioner was no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation---Petitioner was still awaiting his trial, the conclusion of which was not in sight in near future, therefore, his further detention in jail would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Salman Hamid vs State S — 2024 YLR 2359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR