IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.1032 of
2024
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE(s) OF JUDGE(s) |
For
hearing of bail application
--------------------------------------------
05.05.2025
Mr. Gulsher
Baloch, advocate for applicant
Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
SIP Sabir
Sultan
------------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J:- Applicant/accused
Rubina wife of Abdul Hameed
seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No.66 of 2025 registered at Police Station Chakiwara, Karachi for offence under Section 9(1)3(c) of the
Control of Narcotics Substance (Amendment) Act, 2022, after the same was declined
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI Karachi South vide order dated 29.03.2025.
2. Succinctly, the facts as
enumerated in the FIR are that on 13.03.2025 at 0200 hours applicant was
apprehended by police party, who was on patrolling duty, she disclosed her name
as Rubina wife of Abdul Hameed,
upon her personal search, conducted by lady police constable in presence of
police officials, 1100 grams charas was recovered
from her possession, hence the subject FIR.
3. It is inter-alia contended by counsel for applicant that applicant is
innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case by complainant with
malafide intention and ulterior motives as otherwise she has nothing to do with
the alleged offence; that there is delay of one hour in lodging the FIR; that
there is violation of Section 103, Cr.PC as the recovery
has been effected on spy information despite that no private mashir has been associated to witness the arrest and
recovery, as such, applicant may be released on bail as the matter requires further
inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that case
pertains to huge quantity of charas weighing 1100
grams, that chemical report is positive, as such, applicant does not deserve to
be released on bail in view of Section 51 of the Act. Per learned A.P.G., association
of independent witness, especially in narcotic cases, is not necessary, such
requirement has been excluded by virtue of Section 25 of the Act and non-association
of private witness is not a serious defect in such like cases.
5. A bare perusal of order declining bail
to applicant by learned trial Court reveals that grounds so taken before this
Court were well agitated before learned trial Court. Insofar as the application
of Section 103, Cr.P.C. is concerned, suffice to say that such a requirement has
specifically been
excluded by virtue of Section 25 of the Act. It has been observed by the
Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Muhammad Noman Munir v. The State and
another (2020 SCMR 1257), wherein while rejecting the bail plea in a
case of recovery of 1380 grams of cannabis with 07 grams heroin, it has been
held as under:-
“Insofar
as non-association of a witness from the public is concerned, people collected
at the scene, despite request abstained to assist the law and it is so
mentioned in the crime report itself, a usual conduct symptomatic of societal
apathy towards civic responsibilities. Even otherwise, the members of the
contingent being functionaries of the State are second to none in their status, with
their acts statutorily presumed, prima facie, as intra vires.”
6. As regards to the argument that matter
requires further inquiry and applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, law on the point is quite clear that an accused who
is seeking bail in a case falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of
Section 497, Cr.PC is required to bring his case
within the ambit of further inquiry not by raising defence
plea but from the material collected and, that too, by tentative referral
thereof. It is noteworthy that keeping in view the severity of like offences, which
is against the society.
7. It is well settled that at bail stage
deeper appreciation is not permissible under the law but as far as the evidence
which is on the surface of record of this case shows that the applicant is,
prima facie, connected with the alleged offence. No evidence of enmity or
animosity in terms of malafide or ulterior motive has been brought on record,
which might have actuated the complainant to falsely implicate the applicant or
implant such a huge quantity of charas on her, thus,
the applicant is, prima facie, involved and is well connected with the
commission of offence and the question for grant of bail in like cases does not
arise. Pertinent to note that such an offence is directed against the Society
and the Hon’ble apex Court has time and again
held that the menace of drugs is increasing day by day due to various reasons
and it is very disheartening to observe that every day there are many reports
of drug peddlers being caught with drugs, which is great threat to a peaceful
society and is affecting many lives, especially the youngsters, therefore, culprits
involved in like cases do not deserve any leniency and liable to be dealt with
iron hands so as to curb such activities.
8. For the foregoing
reasons, the applicant is not found to be
entitled for grant of post-arrest bail. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. It is, however, need not
to state that the observations recorded herein above are of tentative
assessment and meant for the purpose of the instant bail application,
therefore, the learned trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner
whatsoever while deciding the case of the
applicant/accused on merits. However, learned trial Court, seized of the matter,
is directed to expedite the trial and ensure its early conclusion preferably
within a period of three months.
9. This Criminal
Bail Application No.1032 of 2025 stands dismissed
in the foregoing terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS