IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.935 of
2025
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATURE(s) OF JUDGE(s) |
For
hearing of bail application
--------------------------------------------
30.04.2025
Mr. Kashif
Nazir Baloch, advocate for applicant
Ms. Amna
Ansari, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh
------------------------------------
Shamsuddin Abbasi, J:- Applicant Muzeer Ahmed son of Sakhi Dad seeks
post arrest bail in Crime No.14/2025 under Sections 9(1), 6(c) of CNS Amendment
Act, 2022, registered at PS SIU, Karachi South. Earlier bail plea of the
applicant was turned down by learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi
South, vide order dated 03.04.2025.
2. Briefly facts of the case as narrated
in the FIR are that on 09.02.2025 complainant SIP Syed Akbar Shah, while
searching absconding accused reached within precinct of Baghdadi PS and on a
tipoff regarding supplying narcotics from Baluchistan to interior Sindh by two
persons, arrested co-accused Shay Haq Liaquat and present applicant, who was carrying black
shopper in his right hand. Police after search recovered 540 grams of Heroin,
wrapped in white plastic purse, cash, etc. Police arrested the accused persons
and registered the aforesaid FIR.
3. Per counsel, applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in instant case and nothing was recovered from his
possession. According to him, the place of arrest and recovery of narcotics is
though a thickly populated area, the police failed to associate any independent
persons of the vicinity to act as mashir of arrest
and recovery. He further submits that all the prosecution witness are police officials and being subordinate to the
complainant are interested witnesses. He further submits that mere mentioning
name of applicant in FIR does not mean to withhold the concession of bail and
curtail liberty of applicant who is presumed to be innocent until found guilty
of alleged offences. He lastly submitted that there is no likelihood of
applicant to either abscond or tamper with the evidence or misuse the
concession of bail.
4. Conversely, learned Additional
Prosecutor General Sindh vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground
that huge quantity of narcotic was recovered from the possession of applicant
and challan has been submitted by I.O.
5. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned
Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the material available on
record.
6. No mala fide, ill will or any grudge
has been shown against the police for falsely implicating the applicant in the
present case, nor is it possible for the police to plant such a huge quantity
of heroin. On the tentative assessment of the material on record, the applicant
is prima facie connected with the commission of an offence which is not only
against the State but also against the Society at large. Reliance in this
respect is placed upon the case of SOCHA GUL v. The STATE (2015 SCMR 107), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the offence under
CNS Act to be heinous against the society at large, has observed as under:-
“8. It is pertinent to mention here that offences punishable under
C.N.S. Act of 1997 are by its nature heinous and considered to be the offences
against the society at large and it is for this reason that the statute itself
has provided a note of caution under section 51 of C.N.S. Act of 1997 before
enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary course. When we refer to the
standards set out under section 497, Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under section 9(c) of C.N.S.
Act of 1997, even on that basis we find that an accused charged with an
offence, prescribing various punishments, as reproduced above, is not entitled
for grant of bail merely on account of the nature or quantity of narcotic
substance, being four kilograms. Firstly, as deeper appreciation of evidence is
not permissible at bail stage and secondly, in such situation, looking to the
peculiar features and nature of the offence, the trial Court may depart from
the normal standards prescribed in the case of Ghulam
Murtaza (supra) and award him any other legal
punishment. Thus, in our opinion, ratio of judgment in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) is not
relevant at bail stage.
7. 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, learned trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever while deciding the case of applicant 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.935 of 2025 stands dismissed
in the foregoing terms.
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS