ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail Application No.S- 284 of 2020

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of bail application

19-06-2020.

Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed Awan Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Mohsin Ali Khan, Special Prosecutor for ANF.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah-J:- It is alleged that applicant with rest of the culprits was found transporting 12 kilograms of charas; 400 grams of heroin powder and 600 grams of Mathpamphentine (ice) through his car by police party of PS ANF Sukkur, led by SIP Imran Ali, for that he was booked and reported upon.

2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC-II Sukkur has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police; Complainant has himself investigated the case; there is no independent witness to the incident; seal on parcel containing Mathpamphentine (ice) was found unsatisfactory by the chemical examiner; the liability of the applicant is only to the extent of recovery of heroin powder and Mathpamphentine (ice) from him; the applicant is in custody since six months without substantial trial, therefore the applicant according to him is entitled to grant of bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention he has relied upon cases of Murad Khan Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 431) and Aya Khan and another Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 350).

4. Learned Special Prosecutor ANF has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant is fully involved in commission of incident; he is defeating the trial and offence which he has committed is affecting the society at large. In support his contention he has relied upon case of The State Vs. Javed Khan (2010 SCMR 1989).

5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

6. The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with specific allegation that he was found to be driving the car, therefore, his liability is over the entire contains lying in the car, which could not be divided into pieces. It is true that there is no independent witness to the incident, but explanation to such omission is provided by the complainant in FIR itself. The police officials even otherwise are as good witnesses as others, until and unless some malafide is alleged and proved against them, which obviously is lacking in the present case. There is nothing in Narcotics law which may prevent the police officer being complainant and investigating officer of the same case. Seal on one parcel containing heroin powder and Mathpamphentine (ice) might have been found to be unsatisfactory, but such fact could not be resolved by this Court at this stage. The applicant as per learned prosecutor is found to be defeating the trial, therefore his being in custody for about six months is not found enough to order his release on bail in case like present one, which is entailing the death penalty and/or imprisonment for life. It would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence, with which he is charged.

7. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In cases of Murad Khan and Aya Khan (Supra) the total recovery was of 600 and 1100 grams of heroin powder respectively. In the instant case recovery is huge one. It is 12 kilograms of charas, beside 400 grams of heroin powder and 600 grams of Mathpamphentine (ice).

8. In view of above, it could be concluded safely that the applicant is not found entitled to grant of bail. Consequently the instant bail application is dismissed.

Judge

Nasim/P.A