ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.242 of 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE(S) OF JUDGE(S)
FOR HEARING OF BAIL APPLICATION
Date of hearing: 27.3.2019
Date of Order: 27.3.2019
Mr. Muhammad Shafi Khan, advocate for applicant
Mr. Khadim Hussain Kooharo, APG
ORDER
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. Having remained unsuccessful in obtaining her release on bail from the trial Court in Crime No.45/2019 registered under Section 6/9(C) of C.N.S. Act, 1997 at PS Nazimabad, Karachi. Now the applicant Mst. Rubina is seeking her release on bail through instant bail application.
2. Brief facts are that on 06.02.2019 at 2105 hours the complainant SI Abdul Sattar of PS Nazimabad lodged FIR stating therein that on spy information that well-known drug dealer Rubina w/o Muhammad Hanif alias Pankha will pass with chars through Kathaiwari Mohalla, Chota Maidan, Nazimabad No.3, Karachi, he along with his subordinate staff PC Laiq Shah, PC Faryad Ali, Lady searcher LPC Shahzadi Sultan and LPC Tousiba Rasheed at about 2030 hours reached at the pointed place and on the pointation of spy informer, apprehended one lady in black Burqa (veil) through lady searcher. On enquiry she disclosed her name as Rubina w/o Muhammad Hanif. Due to non-cooperation of private witnesses, she was searched in presence of police officials, from accused Mst. Rubina 1600 grams chars and cash of Rs.300/- being sale proceed were recovered. On further search, one mobile phone Nokia, one small purse containing Rs.270/- and original NIC in the name of Rubina w/o Muhammad Hanif were recovered. He sealed the recovered chars and arrested the accused. He brought the accused at police station where a case under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotics & Substances Act was registered against accused. Hence, this FIR.
3. Learned counsel for applicant inter-alia contends that the recovery affected from the applicant is 1600 grams Chars, chemical report is delayed; no independent person has been cited as witness; applicant has no previous criminal record; investigation is completed; all the prosecution witnesses are police officials, hence there is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. He lastly contended that applicant is behind the bar since 06.02.2019 and having in advance age, she is suffering from multiple diseases and has no previous criminal history against her.
4. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General opposed this bail application on the ground that this is a crime against society, however, he concedes that there is no criminal history of the applicant.
5. After careful consideration of contentions of learned counsel for the parties and meticulous examination of available record, alleged contraband narcotics is 1600 grams Chars. No private witnesses have been associated in spite of prior spy information received at the police station, hence the complainant party least could have made an attempt to associate private mashirs from way or pointed place; there is a delay in sending the representative part for chemical examination which (delay) would also be required an explanation by prosecution hence making a room for further probe. Applicant has been in continuous custody since last about two months and is no more required for any purpose of investigation nor the prosecution has claimed any exceptional circumstance which could justify keeping the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period. Moreover, prosecution has not claimed that the applicant is previously involved in same nature of cases. All the prosecution witnesses are police officials hence there is no question of tampering with the evidence. Therefore, keeping in view of peculiar facts of instant case; continuous detention of about two months as well minimum punishment, which normally may be considered while dealing with bail plea, I am of the view that scale tilts in favour of the applicant for grant of bail as no useful purpose is likely to be served with further detention of applicant pending determination of his guilt.
6. Keeping in view the above given circumstances, I, accordingly admit the applicant on bail subject to her furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. Needless to mention here that any observation if made in this order is tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case.
Judge
asim/pa