IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 1061 of 2017

Muhammad Ali @ Kokan….……………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State……………………………….…………..……………….Respondent

Date of hearing and order : 26.07.2017

Mr.Naseer Ahmed, advocate for applicant

Mr.Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl.P.G.

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The applicant is facing trial before the lower forum in a case registered against him at PS Docks under Crime No. 179/2017 under Sections, 6/9(b) Control of Narcotics Substance Act.

1. The prosecution case is that the police party of PS Docks headed by ASI Zarshad Mohammed was on routine patrolling when they noticed applicant at 12:30 AM near ICI Company. The applicant was intercepted and his personal search was taken and from his pocket pieces of hashish, wrapped in blue coloured plastic, were recovered. The recovered quantity was weighed and found 400 grams. He was arrested and brought at the police station, where FIR was lodged.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, the recovered quantity comes under a small quantity and usually bail is not declined for such a small quantity of narcotics. He submits that the police are having animosity with the applicant as such he was involved in this case.

3. The learned Additional PG half-heatedly opposes but submits that the quantity of narcotics is small as such bail usually not declined.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the relevant record. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that he has previously been convicted. In this respect, I am of the view that under the law bail cannot be refused solely on the ground that the applicant is once convicted for some offence. The previous conviction of the applicant may be considered at the time of sentencing of subsequent offence. The recovery was allegedly taken place after midnight and the recovery witnesses are police officials, as such arrest and recovery needs further probe in the backdrop of a plea of animosity with police. I am of the view that I am of the view that a case of bail has been made out, as such the applicant is admitted to bail subject of furnishing surety of Rs. 50,000/-up to the satisfaction of trial court.

5. If the applicant after getting bail becomes absconder, then the trial Court will be fully empowered to take action against the applicant, including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court.

6. The above are the reasons of my short order dated 26.07.2017.

J U D G E