| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3718 2025 SLD 3718 = 2025 SCP 282 = 2026 SCMR 115 |
Crl. PLA Nos.537-2025 & 559-2025 (Against the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Crl.Misc. No.1865-B-2025 and Crl.Misc.No.1864-B-2025)
Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar Justice Aamer Farooq Justice Ali Baqar Najafi
Muhammad Daud Amanullah
VERSUS
The State and another
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(2), 29
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 497
Summary:
The petitioners Muhammad Daud and Amanullah sought bail against their arrest in a narcotics case where 3.2 kilograms of Methamphetamine (Ice) were recovered collectively from them and co-accused. The key legal issue was whether each petitioner should be attributed only the narcotics found in their individual possession (1 kg each) or the entire collective amount (3.2 kgs) based on conscious knowledge of possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the total quantity cannot be attributed to each accused unless there is confidence-inspiring material proving conscious knowledge of the collective possession. Since evidence did not show that the petitioners were aware of others’ possession, they were attributed only with the quantity recovered from them individually. Bail was granted accordingly as the punishment for 1 kg does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were ordered released on bail subject to bonds.
Core Points:
- Petitioners arrested for possession of Methamphetamine (Ice) 3.2 kg collectively.
- Each petitioner individually had approx. 1 kg recovered.
- Main legal question: whether to attribute 3.2 kg to each accused based on conscious knowledge.
- Possession requires both physical control and knowledge (mens rea).
- Burden on prosecution to prove conscious knowledge of collective possession.
- At bail stage, courts do not deeply appraise evidence but look for prima facie case.
- Without satisfactory proof of conscious knowledge of others’ narcotics, only individual quantity is attributed.
- Punishment for 1 kg in the table of section 9(2) Act is up to 7 years imprisonment and fine, which is not prohibitory for bail under section 497 Cr.P.C.
- Petitioners granted bail with bonds, one petitioner must surrender card/passport.
- Cases cited: Tariq Bashir v The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Gul Manan v The State (2021 SCMR 1804), and others on conscious possession doctrine.
Law and Section Table:
| Law/Section | Provision | Punishment Range |
|---|---|---|
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Section 9(2) | Punishment table for different narcotic quantities | Up to 1 kg: 5-7 years imprisonment + fine |
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Section 9(2) | 2-3 kg: 10-14 years imprisonment + fine | |
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Section 9(2) | 3-4 kg: 14-20 years imprisonment + fine | |
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Section 9(2) | >4 kg (Ice): Life imprisonment + minimum fine Rs.2,500,000 | |
| Section 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 | Presumption of possession once narcotics found on accused | Shifts burden to accused to disprove knowledge |
| Section 497 Cr.P.C. | Bail prohibitory clause for offenses punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment >= 10 years | Bail is not barred if punishment < 10 years |
JUDGMENT