ISLAMABAD: Taking exception to the prosecution’s shifting stance in a narcotics case without realising the gravity of its conduct, the Supreme Court has ruled that whenever reasonable doubt arises, an accused should not be deprived of the benefit of bail.
“The object of a trial is to make an under-trial accused answer the criminal charge instead of punishing him by letting him rot behind bars,” regretted Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who headed a three-judge SC bench.
The bench had taken up a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Akbar, who was originally granted bail by the SC on April 16 in a case registered at the New Sariab police station in Quetta.
In a five-page order, Justice Mazhar revealed a startling sequence of events, highlighting how the original FIR was lodged against the accused under Sections 379, 420, 274, 275 and 276 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), as well as Sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, in connection with the transportation of expired drugs.
Bench takes issue with prosecution’s shifting stance in bail case; questions post-facto deletion, insertion of sections in FIR
These sections deal with offences affecting public health and safety, including drug adulteration and misrepresentation, which carry penalties of up to six months’ imprisonment.
On the basis of these sections, a two-judge SC bench had granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner against bail bonds of Rs100,000 with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
When the SC’s bail order was sent for compliance, it emerged that the prosecution had modified the FIR by deleting the original sections and replacing them with Sections 409, 471, 468, 467, 420 and 109 of the PPC, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
These sections cover serious white-collar and financial crimes involving public servants, forgery, cheating, abetment and, frequently, corruption, bank fraud and property misappropriation and carry severe punishment, ranging from 10 years to life in prison.
During the hearing, when the court asked state counsel Baqir Shah and investigating officer Muhammad Ajmal why new PPC sections had been added to the FIR, they said the additions were made on Jan 15, 2026. However, they failed to offer any plausible reason why the modified FIR had not been brought on record before the SC when bail was granted earlier.
They also could not justify the deletion of Sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act from the FIR, even though the initial allegation against the petitioner concerned the transportation of expired drugs.
When the court asked the investigating officer what new evidence had been brought on record to necessitate these insertions, he replied that four witness statements had been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He added that the prosecuting deputy superintendent of police in Quetta had sought the opinion of the deputy inspector general of police in Quetta and the SP (legal), who had recommended deleting the original sections and adding new ones.
“It appears from the conduct of the prosecution that, to complicate the case with some ulterior motives, the prosecution acted unfairly and added certain sections without realising the effect of deleting these sections of the Drugs Act. Another aim may be to frustrate and deprive the petitioner of the concession of bail,” Justice Mazhar regretted.
The judge regretted that owing to the concealment of facts, the possibility that the new sections had been added after the court’s order solely to deprive the petitioner of bail could not be ruled out, and extended the bail granted earlier.
Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2026
