THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.1256 of 2019
Applicant : Muhammd Naeem son of Abdul Rahim
through M/s. Mallag Assa Dashti & Niaz Ahmed, Advocates.
Respondent : The State through Ms. Firdous Faridi,
Special Prosecutor, Customs Department.
Date of hearing : 24.10.2019
Date of Decision : 24.10.2019
ORDER
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI J. Applicant/accused Muhammad Naeem seeks his release on bail in case Crime No.21 of 2017 registered at police station Customs, under Section 6/9-C of C.N.S. Act. Prior to filing this bail application, applicant also approached to the trial Court, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the bail plea of the applicant vide impugned order dated 30.04.2019; hence, instant bail application.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of instant bail application as per FIR lodged by the complainant SPO Azhar Malik of Customs on 18.02.2017 at about 0430 p.m., alleging therein that he received a credible information that three passengers carrying contraband heroin in the grab of personal baggage were travelling in a passenger bus bearing registration No.BSB-353, which would pass through RCD highway, therefore, the complainant alerted the staff of Customs Choke Point for strict watch in checking of buses arriving from Quetta, and at about 0600 a.m., the said bus was spotted during checking and when the customs stead was about to reach near the bus it was seen that three passengers left the bus with their luggage consisted of two large polythene bags, they had quickly crossed the other side of the road and ran away, they had chased and one of the suspected was intercepted with his luggage consisted of two large polythene bags, whereas, the other passengers (one man and one child) without any luggage fled away taking advantage of darkness and bushes. Later, the apprehended passenger identified as Mohammad Naeem son of Abdul Rehman and search of the two large polythene bags carried out in presence of driver and conductor and mashirs namely Missal Khan and Qaim Shah, which resulted into the recovery of contraband heroin packed in 11 polythene bags weighing 11 kgs, thereafter, the bus along with the passenger Mohammad Naeem, driver Mohammad Usman and conductor namely, Salal Ahmed escorted to ASO HQ, Karachi and arrested. Hence, this FIR.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant; that the applicant is behind the bars since his arrest and prosecution has failed to examine any single witness in this case; that three accused persons have been enlarged on bail and the case of the present accused is on same footings and he is also entitled for bail on the ground of rule of consistency. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied upon the case laws reported as 2010 YLR 701 [Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and another]; 2013 MLD 1774 [Musa Khan v. The State]; 2012 YLR 314 Sindh (Nisar Ali v. The State]; and 1989 P.Cr.L.J. 1866 [Muhammad Farooq v. The State].
4. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor Customs has opposed this bail application on the ground that the recovery of 11 Kgs heroin recovered from the possession of the accused Mohammad Naeem, therefore, it cannot be said that the case of the present accused is on same footings as the case of other accused persons. She vehemently contended that there is no enmity between the customs officials and the accused; therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have gone through the case papers, so made available before me.
6. It appears from the record that the alleged incident was took place on 18.02.2017 and the FIR of the said incident also lodged on same date by the complainant Muhammad Azhar Malik, Senior Preventive Officer of Customs Department. The allegations against the applicant is that on the relevant date and time, 11 Kgs heroin was recovered from his possession in presence of mashirs namely Missal Khan and Qaim Shah, who appears to be no inimical terms with the applicant. Nothing on record that the complainant or mashirs of the case have any inimical terms with the applicant. Allegedly, the huge quantity of heroin was recovered from the applicant as stated in FIR and memo of arrest and recovery.
7. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that case of the applicant is identical to those applicants, who have already been granted bail by the trial Court. This aspect of the case has also been considered by the trial Court and I have gone through the case papers, but did not find the case of applicant has identical with the cases of other applicants. Case is at initial stage. Since the huge quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from the applicant and the learned trial Court while rejecting the bail of the applicant has taken into consideration all the aspects of the case involved in this bail application; therefore, I do not find any merit in this bail application, which is accordingly dismissed. The case laws cited by learned Counsel for the applicant have been perused and considered by me, but do not find applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. It is made clear that the above observations are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of applicant on merits. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is behind the bars since his arrest, therefore, trial Court is directed to proceed the matter expeditiously and decide the same, preferably, within the period of three (3) months after receipt of this order and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side; and compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II.
The bail application stands dismissed.
Faizan A. Rathore/PA* JUDGE