IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Crl. Bail Application
No. 706 of 2018
Dur
Muhammad..
.
.
...Applicant
Versus
The
State.
.........................................................................
Respondent
Malik
Fayyaz Ahmed, Advocate for applicant
Ms.
Abida Parveen Channer, Special Prosecutor ANF
Date of
hearing : 18.09.2018
Date of
order : _________
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The
applicant Dur Muhammad is seeking post arrest bail in a case registered against
him vide FIR No.30/17 at PS. ANF, Muhammad Ali Society, Karachi under Section
6/9 (C) Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997.
2.
I have heard the arguments advanced
from the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Special Prosecutor, ANF
and perused the record present and/or produced before me. After getting
enlightened from the valued submissions made at bar and scanning the record, I
have observed as under:
(a)
The allegations against the
applicant is that he was apprehended by the raiding ANF party, who on a tip of
apprehended the applicant from Jinnah International Airport while he was trying
to go Jeddah through Saudi Airline and from his baggage 1.700 kg methamphetamine
and 200 grams of heroin were recovered. In total the gross weight of narcotics
with packaging comes to the tune of 1.940 kg.
(b)
As
per allegation, 200 grams of diamorphine (heroin) and 1700 grams of
methamphetamine were recovered from the applicant. The psychotropic drug
diamorphine (heroine) comes under Narcotics Schedule-I of UN Convention of
Psychotropic Substance while methamphetamine comes under Narcotics Schedule-II
of the same convention.
(c)
It
will make no difference that the applicant is a first offender and no previous
record is produced by the prosecution regarding his involvement in narcotics
trade or transportation.
(d)
The
applicant was arrested from airport, while he was trying to go KSA. The
accused, who are involved in trading/transporting narcotics out of country may
also fetch bed name for country, as such they directly affect the populace of
Pakistan.
(e)
Accused
had not been able to refer to anything from the record which could suggest that
the complainant or any other member of the raiding party had any enmity with
the accused.
(f)
The
learned counsel for the applicant after relying on the case reported as Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (PLD 20s09 Lah.
362), contends that the punishment is lesser, I am of the view that the dictum
of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) case can only be considered at the time of
sentencing. I fortify my view from a case reported as Socha Gul v/s the State
(2015 SCMR 1077), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:
It is pertinent to mention
here that offences punishable under C.N.S. Act of 1997 are by its nature
heinous and considered to be the offences against the society at large and it
is for this reason that the statute itself has provided a note of caution under
section 51 of C.N.S. Act of 1997 before enlarging an accused on bail in the
ordinary course. When we refer to the standards set out under section 497,
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under section
9(c) of C.N.S. Act of 1997, even on that basis we find that an accused charged
with an offence, prescribing various punishments, as reproduced above, is not
entitled for grant of bail merely on account of the nature or quantity of narcotic
substance, being four kilograms. Firstly, as deeper appreciation of evidence is
not permissible at bail stage and secondly, in such situation, looking to the
peculiar features and nature of the offence, the trial Court may depart from
the normal standards prescribed in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) and award
him any other legal punishment. Thus, in our opinion, ratio of judgment in the
case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) is not relevant at bail stage.
(g)
As
far as direction is concerned, the same is given with intention to ginger up
the trial Court for early disposal of the cases. The time given in the
direction may be extended by this Court looking at the circumstances. In
direction cases. It is advisable for the trial court to furnish report before
expiry of date with request of extension of time.
3.
In
view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that a case of bail has not
been made out, as such the bail is dismissed. However, the earlier direction
given to the trial Court is extended for a further period of three months from
the date of communication of this order to trial Court.
J U D G E