ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Bail Appln.No.S-402 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

                                    For hearing of bail application.

05.10.2020

Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, Advocate for applicant

                        Mr. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G for the State

                        ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant bail application are that the applicant and co-accused were found to be in possession of Toyota Hilux Pickup, by police party of Excise P.S  Shikarpur Town and on search from its secrete cavity were secured 40 packets of the Charas, each weighing to be 01 K.G, making total of 40 K.Gs, for that the present case was registered.

2.        The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNS), Shikarpur, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s.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; there is no independent witness to the incident; the applicant was simply sitting in the vehicle, otherwise, he has got no concern with the vehicle or the contents lying therein; therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail on point of further inquiry.           In support of his contention, he has relied upon case of Hussain Ullah Vs. The State and another (2019 SCMR-1651).

4.        Learned D.P.G. for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the applicant has committed the offence, which is affecting the society at large. In support of his contention, he has relied upon cases of Saiful Haq Vs. The State (2012 YLR-413) and Shakeel Khan Vs. The State (1999 MLD-1584).

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

6.        The applicant is named in the FIR with specific allegation that he and co-accused Shadi Khan were found travelling through Toyota Hilux Pickup, which was found containing 40 K.Gs of the Charas in its secrete cavity. In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police. The police party indeed was having no reason to involve the applicant in this case falsely by making foistation of such huge quantity of Charas upon him. No doubt, there is no independent witness to the incident but for this reason, the police officials could not be disbelieved at this stage, who even otherwise are having no enmity with the applicant apparently. The applicant may not be owner or driver of the vehicle, but for this reason alone, he could not be admitted to bail ignoring the recovery of huge quantity of Charas from secrete cavity of the vehicle, wherein he was found travelling being in its last possession. The deeper appreciation of the facts and circumstances even otherwise are not permissible at bail stage. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for 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 that case, there was no secrete cavity in the Car and the Charas recovered from the Car was only to the extent of 03 K.Gs. In the instant case, there was secrete cavity in the vehicle and the Charas recovered is 40 K.Gs.

8.        In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the instant bail application is dismissed with directions to learned trial Court to expedite disposal of the case against the applicant preferably within two months, after receipt of copy of this order.

                              J U D G E

*