IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 836 of 2018

Zameer Ahmed and 02 others…………………...…………………..Applicant

Versus

The State……………………………….…………..……………….Respondent

Date of Hearing & Short Order : 07.09.2018

Ms. Dil Khurram Shaheen, advocate for applicant

Ms. Firdous Farridie, Special Prosecutor Custom

O R D E R

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The applicants are facing trial before the subordinate forum in a case registered against them at PS ASO, NMB Whart, Karachi under Crime No. ASO-215/2017-HQ dated 03.10.2017 under Sections 6, 7, 8 & 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997.

2. The prosecution case is that the Customs authorities and Ranger's staff were available at Mochko Check Point on a drive of joint checking of the passenger buses arriving from Baluchistan. At about 07:50 PM, a passenger bus bearing registration No. BSA-621, Mulla Jan Coach was stopped for a thorough checking. A suspected polypropylene bag was offloaded from which opium was recovered kept under dates in a cooking oil tin. The recovered opium was found about 8 kg, the driver Zameer Ahmed, co-driver Khalid Hussain and cleaner Nawab Ali were asked about the recovered narcotics but they could not reply. The narcotics were separately sealed after taking a sample and the above mentioned accused persons were arrested and booked in this case.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. According to her, the recovered quantity does not come under huge quantity and usually bail is not declined for such quantity of narcotics. According to her, the incident is said to be taken place at a time when people are available at highways but neither the customs authorities nor rangers tried to associate private persons as witness. She submits that the previous bail application of the applicants was withdrawn and direction was given but in spite of that no progress has been taken in the instant case. She submits that there is doubt about the recovery and it cannot be said safely that the applicants are the actual culprits.

4. On the other hand, the learned Special Prosecutor while opposing the instant bail application submits that the applicants at the time of arrest have not reasoned out about the recovered narcotics. If the narcotics were not kept by the applicants, then they have to inform about the owner of the narcotics. She submits that as per practice, the seats number of the passenger is required to write on his baggage but no such seat number was mentioned on the baggage from which narcotics were recovered. She submits that after the withdrawal of the previous bail application, the applicants are required to file fresh bail application before the trial Court, which they did not do.

5. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the relevant record. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, it cannot be said that the recovered quantity does not fall under the category of huge quantity. The applicants are driver and cleaner of a bus from which the narcotics were recovered and they could not reason out regarding availability of the said bag from which the narcotics were recovered. The learned prosecutor has rightly pointed out that the seat number was missing from the baggage, which indicates that the applicants must have some hand in respect of the narcotics recovered from the bus which was plied by them. It is also a fact that after withdrawal of the previous bail application, the applicants have to approach the trial Court first before approaching this Court.

6. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that at least at this stage the applicants are not entitled for any concession; hence the instant bail application is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to pace up the trial against the applicants and dispose of the case as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months. In case of failure, the applicants are at liberty to file bail application before the trial Court.

7. These are the reasons for short order dated 07.09.2018.

J U D G E