IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 981 of 2018
Majid
son of Muhammad Aslam.
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date of Order : 17.08.2018
Mr. Dur Muhammad Mullah, advocate for
applicant
Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Shah, DPG
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. 147/2018 under Sections, 6/9 (c) of the Control
of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997.
2.
The
prosecution case is that the police party of PS Quaidabad headed by SIP Rizwan
was on routine patrolling when they reached near Rice Godown situated at Mehran
Highway at 18:36 hours, they noticed the applicant having a blue shopper in his
hand. The applicant was intercepted and his personal search was taken and from
his shopper a piece of hashish, wrapped in a khaki tape and 43 tokens of
crystals were recovered. The recovered narcotics were weighed and hashish was
weighing 1700 grams while crystal was found 20 grams. He was arrested and
brought at the police station, where FIR was lodged.
3.
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 does
not come under huge quantity and usually bail is not declined for such quantity
of narcotics. According to him, the incident is said to be taken place at a
time when people are available at highways but police did not try to associate
a private person to witness recovery. He submits that the trial Court declined
the bail on the ground that there are cases against the applicant and he is
convicted in one case. He submits that none of the previous cases against the
applicant pertains to narcotics substance and those cases are of
quarrel/dispute with neighbour and the conviction is in a pistol case. He
submits that the police are having animosity with the applicant as such he was
involved in this case.
4.
The
learned DPG half-heatedly opposes and verifies that none of the cases mentioned
in CRO pertains to narcotics. In response to a query, he submits that the
conviction fallen upon the applicant is in respect of recovery of a pistol.
5.
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 conviction is not in respect
of recovery of narcotics while pendency of cases is not a sole ground of
refusal of bail. Even the previous conviction of the applicant may be
considered at the time of sentencing of subsequent offence and usually the same
have less bearing in respect of bail. The recovery taken place at a time when
availability of public is rational. The witnesses are all police officials, as
such arrest and recovery needs further probe in the backdrop of a plea of
animosity with police.
6.
In
the above circumstances, 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. 100,000/-up to the satisfaction of trial court.
7.
These
observations
are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party during the
trial. 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.
8.
The
above are the reasons for the short order dated 17-08-2018 whereby bail in the
above terms was granted to the applicant.
J U D G E