How Major Contradictions in Evidence Led to Bail in a Narcotics Case

Introduction to the Case

Recently, a significant bail decision emerged from Peshawar in a narcotics possession case. The court granted bail to the accused after identifying serious flaws in the prosecution’s evidence. This case highlights crucial legal principles that can strongly benefit individuals facing similar charges.

The Core Grounds for Granting Bail

The court carefully examined multiple aspects of the case and found several compelling reasons for bail. Firstly, the documents presented by the prosecution contained a major date discrepancy. The First Information Report (FIR) stated the recovery of contraband occurred on August 29, 2021. However, the official Store-Room Register (Register XIX) recorded the recovery on August 28, 2021. This direct contradiction between two key documents created substantial doubt about the prosecution’s version of events. Consequently, the court decided this inconsistency alone warranted bail at this stage.

Unnatural Conduct and Implausible Recovery

Furthermore, the location of the alleged recovery raised serious questions. The site plan indicated a public area with interconnected roads and regular vehicle traffic. In such a visible location, the police party would have been noticeable from a considerable distance. Surprisingly, the accused made no attempt to escape despite having a vehicle at his disposal. This unnatural conduct further weakened the prosecution’s narrative.

Additionally, the alleged recovery of narcotics from the vehicle’s fuel tank presented a practical impossibility. The prosecution failed to explain how the vehicle could have been operational with drugs stored in its fuel tank. This implausible scenario represents a significant point for the trial court to determine later.

Lack of Independent Witnesses and Completed Investigation

Another critical failure was the investigation team’s neglect to associate any independent witnesses with the recovery. The absence of neutral witnesses to corroborate the police version always casts a shadow over the fairness of the proceedings. Moreover, the investigation in the case was already complete. Therefore, the accused was no longer needed for any investigative purpose, making his continued detention unnecessary.

Conclusion and Legal Assistance

In summary, the court granted bail due to contradictory evidence dates, the accused’s unnatural conduct at the scene, an implausible recovery location, and a lack of independent witnesses. This case demonstrates that strong legal defense can successfully challenge narcotics charges based on procedural and evidence flaws.

For professional assistance with criminal law services and related legal matters, contact:

Muhammad Amin, Advocate
📞 Phone: 0313-9708019 | 0335-1990495
📧 Email: muhammadaminadvo111@gmail.com