IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal
Bail Application No. 880 of 2017
Nazeer
Ahmed..
...
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
..
.Respondent
Date
of hearing and order : 12.07.2017
Mr. Tahir-ur-Rehman, Advocate
for applicant.
Mr.
Muntazir Mehdi, APG.
O
R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The applicant through the instant
bail application raised plea for his release during trial under Section 497 Cr.P.C
in a case registered against him and initiated under FIR No.30/2017 of Police
Station Sukhan, Malir, Karachi under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic
Substance Act, 1997.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned Prosecutor enjoyed the full opportunity of addressing the Court. I
have considered their submissions and gone through the record of the case. From
whatever said and produced before me, I have observed as under:
a)
The
allegation against the applicant is that the complainant (ASI Muhammad Ashfaq)
during routine police patrolling, arrested the applicant on a tip of
information and from his possession 2 kilograms of hashish (charas) was
recovered, in the presence of recovery witnesses.
b)
The
learned counsel took the plea that the ASI is not competent to conduct search
in CNS cases as such the entire recovery becomes ineffective. In this respect,
I am of the view that the provision of Section 21 of CNS Act, pertains to
search within a building or house and the same does not cover the search of a
person on the roadside during routine patrolling or blockade (Nak-bandi).
c)
The
recovery of huge quantity of charas i.e. 2 kg is sufficient to belie the
contention of foisting.
d)
As
far as the plea of non-associating of private witnesses is concerned, it is a
settled legal position that the police officials are competent recovery
witnesses unless something contrary is established against them, which is
persuasive to believe about foisting the narcotics.
e)
The
learned counsel tried to make it a great point that the procedure of weighing
the recovered property is not mentioned in FIR. In this respect, I am of the
view that it is not necessary to describe the minute details in FIR besides
this fact comes under the deeper appreciation, which is not possible at bail
stage.
f)
As
the tendency of using narcotics is rampant in our society and now the narcotics
paddlers succeeded to penetrate in our education institution, it is; therefore,
the demand of time that such persons should not be dealt with in leniency.
g)
A
concession in granting bail to the applicant should be unfair, and even, if he
is released temporarily, in all probability, he would continue the similar
activity of dealing in contraband substance.
3. It
is my tentative view that there is sufficient material available on record to
associate the applicant with the commissioning of offence and such type of
crimes are against the society. In the instant matter, prima facie no case of
further investigation within the meaning of Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C. has been
made out for the grant of bail and accordingly the bail application was
dismissed vide short order dated 12.07.2017 and these are the reasons of the same. The said short
order is reproduced as under:
For the reasons to be recorded later on,
instant bail application is dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to pace
up the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of 03 months.
4. I would like to make it clear that, the
above observations are purely tentative in nature, and the same are only meant
for the purpose of bail and would have no impact or effect on any party during
the trial.
J
U D G E