IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No. S-108 of 2018

 

Applicant:                                         Muhammad Bachal son of Ghulam Ali by caste Shaikh through Mr. Ghulam Hussain Surhio, Advocate.

State:                                                 Through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanher A.P.G.

 

Date of hearing:                              06.04.2018.

Date of Order:                                 06.04.2018.

  

O R  D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO-J:-Through instant bail application, applicant Muhammad Bachal Shaikh seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.12/2018, registered at Police Station, Rehmatpur, for offence punishable under section 9 (c) of Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997.  

2.                     Precisely, the relevant facts leading to disposal of instant application are that on 06.02.2018, complainant ASI Ali Dino alongwith his subordinates left police station for patrolling, during which they received spy information that one person is selling narcotics substance inside Pir Murad Shah graveyard. On receipt of such information, complainant alongwith his subordinate staff reached at the pointed place where saw present applicant/accused, who on seeing the police party tried to slip away, however in presence of official mashirs he was arrested alongwith brown colour shopper, which on opening was found containing Charas weighing to be 2350 grams, Opium weighing to be 14 grams and Hemp weighing to be 700 grams. The entire recovered substance was sealed separately at the spot. Thereafter, the accused alongwith recovery was then taken to police station, where the present case was registered against him on behalf of the State. After usual investigation, he was sent up for trial.

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant inter-alia contended that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the police due to personal grudge on account of non-payment of bribe; that the alleged recovery has been foisted against him; that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials despite the fact that the place of incident is situated at thickly populated area yet no independent person was cited as witness/mashir. He lastly prayed for grant of bail to the present applicant.

 4.        Learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State flatly opposed for grant of bail to the present applicant on the ground that he is involved in heinous offence, which is against the society; that there is no malafide on the part of police to foist such a huge quantity of narcotics substance against the applicant.

5.         I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6.         Admittedly, the applicant was arrested on receipt of spy information from Pir Murad Shah graveyard and in consequence whereof, he was found openly selling Charas, Opium and Hemp, in thickly populated area, which will affected the society at large and the same can be used for intoxication. The chemical examiner’s report is in positive. So far non-association of independent person from the locality is concerned, suffice to say that the same is not requirement in the Narcotics cases, as provision of Section 25 of Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, excluded the application of Section 103 Cr.PC, mere fact that the prosecution witnesses are police officials by itself cannot be considered a valid reason to discard their statement more particularly in absence of any animosity in between the police officials and the accused. It cannot be consider that police officials would plant such huge quantity of narcotics upon the applicant from their own source. Prima facie there appears sufficient material available on the record to connect the present applicant with the commission of alleged offence. In this context, the reliance is placed upon case of Dolat Khan vs. the State (2016 SCMR-1447).          

7.                     Consequently, I am therefore of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail in view of Section 51 of Control of Narcotics Substance Act 1997. Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed.

8.                     Needless to mention here that the assertions made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of applicant on merits.

                                                                                                   J U D G E

--