IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Bail
Application No.S-643 of 2021
Applicant: Mst.
Hakimzadi, through
Mr.
Muhammad Ali Dayo, Advocate
Respondent: State through
Mr.Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG
Date of
hearing: 19.11.2021
Dated of order: 19.11.2021
O R D E R
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J: Applicant/accused Mst. Hakimzadi w/o Shaman Bozdar, seeks her post-arrest bail in FIR No.152/2021,
registered at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, under section 9(c) of the Control
of Narcotic Substance, Act, 1997. Her earlier
bail application was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/ (MCTC),Ghotki, vide order dated 11.09.2021.
2. The
allegation against the present applicant is that she was apprehended by the
police party of police Station Mirpur Mathelo, headed
by ASI Zahid Hussain Malik and 1500 grams Charas and 40 gram heroin were
recovered from her possession for which present case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has contended that the recovery proceedings are in violation of section 103
Cr.P.C and the applicant has falsely been implicated by the police due to
political rivalry. He next contended
that it is a case of border line between section 9(b) and 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997
which comes within the scope of section 9(b) of CNS Act, 1997 and does not fall
within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the applicant
is in custody and no more required for further investigation, as such she is
entitled for concession of bail.
4. On
the other hand learned DPG has opposed the grant of bail contending that a considerable
quantity of 1500 grams charas and 40 grams heroin have been recovered from the
possession of applicant and since the offence is against the society,
therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I
have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned DPG for the state and
have gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.
6. The
applicant was apprehended by the police and allegedly 1500 grams Charas was
recovered from her possession which marginally exceeded upper limit of section
9(b) of CNS Act and it is case of border line between clauses (b) and (c) of
section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. In this regard I am
fortified by the case law reported as, Sheerin Muhammad v. The
State (2006 P.Cr.L.J 726), Mehboob Ali v. the State (2007 YLR 2968), and Ayaz
v. The State (2011 P.Cr.LJ 177). Further all the witnesses of the incident are
police officials and none from the public has been cited as witness and no
efforts were taken by the police to associate private persons as witness. Moreover,
the applicant is in custody and is no more required for further investigation.
7. It is
settled principle of law that while deciding the bail plea of accused deeper
appreciation of evidence is not permissible and the material is to be assessed
tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record as
discussed above, the applicant has been able to make out a case of further inquiry
into her guilt. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the applicant is
granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing her solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), and PR bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
8. Observations
made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to
either party at the trial.
9. Instant Criminal Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA