Niaz Wali vs The State

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT,

ISLAMABAD

Crl. Misc. No. 1159-B of 2026 Niaz Wali Versus The State and others

Serial No. of Date of order of Order with signatures of judge, and that of parties of counsel, order of proceedings where necessary.

proceedings 17.08.2026 Syed Naqash Shah, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Saad ul Amin, SPP-ANF, Ali, S.I, ANF.

Umair Majeed Malik, J: Through this petition, the petitioner, Niaz Wali, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.47/2025, dated 05.03.2025, registered under section 6, 9 (1) 3 (e), 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) at Police Station ANF, Islamabad.

2.The brief facts, as stated in the FIR lodged by Daud Shahid, ASI, Police Station-ANF, Islamabad on the complaint of Shahmim Raza, SI, ANF, Islamabad, are that on 05.03.2025, the complainant was present in the Police Station when he received information from the informer that the petitioner, Niaz Ali (Afghani), and his co-accused Hazrat Bilal were smuggling huge quantity of narcotic drugs in Daewoo Bus No.BYU-445, Yellow Color, and were coming from GT Road Peshawar to Punjab and would pass through Chungi No.26, GT Road, Islamabad. Acting upon the information of the informer, the petitioner and his co-accused were apprehended and they allegedly admitted that they were in possession of narcotic drugs. On the pointation of the petitioner, the police allegedly recovered 8,400 kilogram of charas alongwith packing material from his possession which was concealed in the driving seat fuel tank box. Similarly,

Crl. Misc. No. 1159-B of 2026

8,400 kilogram of charas alongwith packing material was allegedly recovered from the possession of his co-accused. Samples were taken and sent for chemical examination.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of prosecution is false, frivolous, baseless and concocted; no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been involved in the case with mala fide intent; the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case; the petitioner was arrested from a thickly populated area but no private person was associated as a recovery witness in violation of section 103 Cr.P.C., and as such there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is behind bars since his arrest; the investigation is complete and challan has been submitted in the trial court, and therefore the petitioner is no more required for further investigation and no fruitful purpose would be served for keeping him behind bars. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has no previous history of such like cases and he is a non-convict. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is behind bars for almost one year and 02 months, the trial has yet to conclude and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to post arrest bail on statutory ground and grave injustice would be caused if he is not released on bail.

4.The learned Special Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail petition and contended that huge quantity of 8400 kilogram of charas has been recovered from the petitioner; the petitioner has committed offence under section 9 (1) (3) (e) of CNSA which carries a punishment up to life imprisonment but not less than 20 years imprisonment, and therefore the case of

Crl. Misc. No. 1159-B of 2026

the petitioner falls in prohibitory clause. The learned SPP further contended that the trial has commenced and evidence of prosecution witness is being recorded and evidence of one PW has been recorded. He further contends that if this Court directs the early conclusion of trial, such directions shall be strictly complied.

5.Arguments heard, record perused.

6.Perusal of police file reveals that the petitioner was arrested on 05.03.2025, when a huge quantity of 8,400 kilograms of charas was allegedly recovered from his possession, which attracts section 9 (1) (3) (e) of CNSA punishable up to life imprisonment but not less than twenty years imprisonment and therefore the same falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The narcotic drugs were recovered from the possession of the petitioner on his disclosure and pointation. The petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that either the police acted with malice to involve the petitioner in the case or planted the huge quantity of charas. The arguments of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of section 103 Cr.P.C. is not found plausible as CNSA is a special law and searches have to be conducted in accordance section 25 of CNSA which excludes applicability of section 103 Cr.P.C. Samples were taken and sent to Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory for analysis within 72 hours. The Report of the Laboratory is positive and the narcotic drugs were found charas. Prima facie, there is sufficient incriminating evidence available on record which connects the petitioner with commission of alleged offences. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of further inquiry for grant of bail.

Crl. Misc. No. 1159-B of 2026

7.Though the petitioner is behind bars for one (01) year and two (02) months but the challan in case FIR No.47/25 has been submitted in the concerned court and after framing of charge, the trial has commenced. The evidence of the prosecution is being recorded by the Trial Court and one prosecution witness has also been examined. In view of the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Rehmatullah and another vs. the State (2011 SCMR 1332), once trial has commenced, the courts ought not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant or cancel bail. The Honorable Supreme Court further held that proper course for the Courts in such situation would be to direct the learned trial courts to conclude the trial of the case within stipulated time.

8.For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail, the instant petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of ninety (90) working days strictly in accordance with law.

9.Needless to mention that the observations recorded hereinabove are based on tentative assessment, which ought not prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial court.

(KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO) (UMAIR MAJEED MALIK)

JUDGE JUDGE

Shafqat*/