IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 618 of 2017
Shahzaib
.
...
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
------------------------------
Criminal Bail Application No. 633 of 2017
Tanveer
Abbas
...
...
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
------------------------------
Criminal Bail Application No. 796 of 2017
Hameedullah
.....
...
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of hearing and order : 01.08.2017
Mr. Liaquat Ali, advocate
for applicant in BA No.618/17
Mr. Amir Jameel, advocate
for applicant in BA No.633/17
Mr. Muhammad Akbar
Khan, advocate for applicant in BA No.796/17
Mr. Raja Ghulam
Murtaza, Special Prosecutor, Coast Guard
Mr. Mir Hussain
Abbasi, Assistant Attorney General
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: This single order will
dispose of the above bail applications moved on behalf of applicants Shah Zaib
(BA No. 618/2017), Tanveer Abbas, & Muhammad Riaz (BA No. 633/2017) and Hameedullah
(BA No. 796/2017) as all of them are based on one and the same FIR. The
applicants by filing these applications raised plea for their release on bail during
trial under Section 497 Cr.P.C in a case registered against them under FIR No.1004/2017
of Police Station IInd Battalion, Pakistan Coast Guard, Karachi under Section 9
(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997.
2. The learned advocates for the applicants
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
allegations against the applicants are that with their connivance, assistance
and/or negligence, the main accused was succeeded in transporting the huge
quantity of hashish (charas) from Rawalpindi to Karachi through a coach which
was under the management and control of applicants Hameedullah (Driver),
Tanveer Abbass (Cleaner) and Muhammad Riaz (Second Driver). It is also alleged
that the accused Shah Zaib was the relative of the main accused Inaamullah and
he was sitting next to the main accused in the coach and allegedly the luggage
from which narcotics were recovered were booked on their behalf jointly.
b)
The
learned counsel for the staff of the coach took the plea that the applicants
were not in the constructive possession of the recovered hashish and they were
not in conscious knowledge of the recovered contraband substance. In this
respect, my observation is that they are bound to take all measures to check
the luggage of all the passengers and the act does not come in simple
negligence but it amounts to criminal negligence as it has provided opportunity
to alleged main culprits for transporting such a huge quantity from Rawalpindi
to Karachi.
c)
The
learned counsel for the applicant Hameedullah during the course of arguments
submits that the culprits were boarded during the way as such proper checking
was not possible. In this respect, my observation is that Pir Wadhai Bus
Terminal is a proper stoppage of intercity coaches, where booking offices of
different road transport services are situated. It is the duty of the staff of
coach to do proper and thorough search and checking before boarding of a person
in the coach.
d)
As
far as the plea of non-associating of private witnesses is concerned, it is a
settled legal position that the officials are competent recovery witnesses
unless something contrary is established against them, which is persuasive to
believe about foisting the narcotics.
e)
The
recovery of huge quantity of hashish (charas) i.e. 30 kg is sufficient to belie
the possibility of foisting.
f)
It
has come on the record that the narcotics belongs to the persons, who were
sitting on seat No. 7 and 8, and amongst those seats, one was occupied by the
applicant Shah Zaib besides it is also come on the record that he is the
relative of main accused Inaamullah as such it is hard to believe that he was
not in the knowledge of the alleged offence.
g)
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.
h)
A
concession in granting bail to the applicants should be unfair, and even, if
they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue the
similar activities 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 applications of all the
applicants are declined.
4. In the instant matter, charge has been framed
against all the accused, as such the case is ripe for trial. The trial Court is
directed to pace up the trial and dispose of the same within the shortest
possible time, preferably within a period of three months.
5. 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