Bahraini Man Acquitted of Import Charges in Unusual Drug Case
TDT | Manama
Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com
A Bahraini man has been acquitted of importing narcotics despite a positive drug test and the discovery of drugs in a package addressed to him. The court instead convicted him on a lesser charge of possession for personal use, sentencing him to three months imprisonment with a three-year suspended sentence due to his lack of prior convictions. The seized package was confiscated.
The unusual case, detailed by the defendant's lawyer, Abdulrahman Al Muawda, involved a postal package addressed to the defendant that was suspected of containing cannabis.
The unusual case, detailed by the defendant's lawyer, Abdulrahman Al Muawda, involved a postal package addressed to the defendant that was suspected of containing cannabis.
Following a warrant from the Public Prosecution, the defendant was apprehended, questioned, and subjected to a urine test. The test confirmed the presence of cannabis and pregabalin (a psychotropic drug).
The Public Prosecution charged the defendant with importing, possessing, and holding cannabis and pregabalin in 2024 for personal use outside legally permitted circumstances.
The Public Prosecution charged the defendant with importing, possessing, and holding cannabis and pregabalin in 2024 for personal use outside legally permitted circumstances.
However, Mr. Al Muawda argued for his client's acquittal on the import charge, emphasising the defendant's denial of any involvement in importing the package or prior knowledge of its contents.
The lawyer argued that someone can use another person's name and information to purchase goods online, and there was no definitive proof linking the defendant to the package's importation.
"My client wasn't aware of the shipment and its contents. He was surprised when he received the call requesting him to receive it. His complete lack of knowledge regarding the package's origin and contents makes his involvement highly improbable," the lawyer stressed.
The court, in its ruling, stated that it could not convict the defendant on the import charge due to a lack of conclusive evidence proving his involvement.
Related Posts