ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
Cr. Bail
Application No. 2465 OF 2025
[Amir Ali and
another Vs. The State]
|
Date |
Order
with signature of Judge |
BEFORE:
Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Mr.
Sathi M. Ishaque, Advocate for applicants.
Ms.
Rubina Qadir, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh alongwith SIP Syed Nadeem Ali
I.O. of the case.
Date
of Hg & order : 29.12.2025.
----------------------------------
ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, J: The applicants / accused,
namely Amir
Ali son of Allah Bux and Abdul Rauf son of Nabi Dad Baloch, through the present bail application, seek post-arrest bail in F.I.R.
No.136 of 2025, registered under Section 9(1), 6(c) of
the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2024, at Police
Station S.I.U., District East. Their earlier bail application
was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi East,
vide order dated 11.09.2025.
2. Concisely,
the prosecution case is that on 30.07.2025, the complainant
SIP Syed Akbar Ali Shah of Police Station
S.I.U., East, Karachi, acting upon prior spy information, proceeded
along with his staff and a spy informer to Bus Stop F-1,
Pakistan Hotel, Muhammadi Market Road, Khokharapar, Karachi. Upon
reaching the pointed location and on identification by the spy informer, two
persons were apprehended who disclosed their names as Amir Ali
and Abdul Rauf (the present applicants/accused). It is
alleged that, in the presence of mashirs and under duly prepared recovery
memos, 510 grams of heroin was recovered from the
possession of applicant Amir Ali, while 515
grams of heroin was recovered from applicant Abdul Rauf,
leading to registration of the instant FIR.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicants/accused contends that the applicants are wholly
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police
with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, aimed at tarnishing their
honour, reputation, and standing in society. He submits that on 28.07.2025, prior to the
alleged incident, police officials forcibly entered the house of the applicants
and unlawfully picked up four male members of the family, including the present
applicants, and subsequently, at the instigation of habitual drug dealers, lodged
a false FIR against them. It is further contended that no recovery whatsoever
was effected from the possession of the applicants and that the alleged
recovery of narcotics has been foisted upon them merely to demonstrate
so-called police efficiency. Learned counsel further argues that the mandatory
safeguards under Section
103 Cr.P.C. were violated, as no independent or private mashir
was associated at the time of the alleged recovery, despite the incident having
taken place at a public location. It is also contended that that accused Adnan son of Allah Bux and Hamid Ali son of Ghulam Haider,
who were involved in FIR No.133/2025 registered under Section
9(2)(4) of the CNS (Amended) Act, 2024 at Police Station S.I.U., District Malir,
have already been granted bail by this Court. He submits that the present
applicants stand on the same footing, as they were allegedly taken into custody
in the same episode and booked in offences of similar nature; hence, on the
principle of consistency, the applicants are also entitled to the concession of
bail. Lastly, it is urged that the applicants have no nexus with the alleged
offence and are, therefore, liable to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor
General Sindh submits that the applicants were arrested red-handed at the spot
and a huge quantity of heroin was recovered from their possession. She further
contends that the arrest and recovery were video-recorded and that sufficient
material exists on record to prima facie connect the applicants with the
offence. According to her, such recovery cannot be foisted; hence, the
applicants are not entitled to bail.
5. From
the record, it prima facie appears that both applicants/accused were
apprehended red-handed at the spot, and heroin weighing 510 grams and 515 grams
was recovered from the possession of applicants Amir Ali and Abdul Rauf,
respectively, which was seized on the spot through separate recovery
proceedings. After completing the necessary formalities at the place of
incident, the police officials proceeded to the police station and lodged the
FIR without any undue delay, wherein the applicants have been nominated with
specific roles. As per
the contents of the FIR, the arrest of the applicants and recovery of the
contraband were also video-recorded through a mobile phone camera in terms of
Section 17(2) of the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2024. The
offence for which the applicants stand charged squarely falls within the
prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Furthermore,
Section 35 of the Sindh Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2025
expressly provides that bail shall not be granted to an accused if there appear
reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment extending up to five years.
It is well settled that offences under the CNS Act are heinous in nature and
are considered crimes against society at large. It is for this very reason that
the legislature has consciously placed stringent restrictions on the grant of
bail, requiring courts to exercise extreme caution before enlarging an accused on
bail in cases involving narcotics offences[1].
6. With
regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that, prior
to the registration of the FIR on 30.07.2025, police officials had forcibly
entered the house of the applicants on 28.07.2025 and taken away four male
members, including the present applicants, and thereafter, on the instigation
of habitual drug dealers, lodged a false FIR against them, it may be observed
that no substantial or cogent material has been placed on record to
substantiate this assertion. Insofar
as the filing of an application under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. against
the police officials is concerned, the record reflects that the said
application was filed by one Ghulam Haider, who, prima facie, does not appear
to have any direct nexus or relationship with the present applicants. Moreover,
the said application was filed on 12.08.2025, i.e., much after the arrest of
the applicants and the registration of FIR No.136 of 2025, which was lodged on
30.07.2025. In these circumstances, the said
contention does not lend any support to the case of the applicants at this
stage and is of no assistance for the purposes of bail.
7. With
regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that accused
Adnan son of Allah Bux and Hamid Ali son of Ghulam Haider,
involved in FIR No.133 of 2025 registered under Section 9(2)(4) of the CNS
(Amended) Act, 2024 at Police Station SIU, District Malir, have already been
granted bail by this Court, and that on the principle of consistency the
present applicants are also entitled to bail as they were allegedly taken into
custody in the same nature of narcotics cases, it may be observed that the said
contention is misconceived. From
the record, it is evident that the present applicants are involved in Crime
No.136 of 2025, relating to the recovery of ICE, whereas Crime No.133 of 2025
pertains to a recovery of heroin, and both cases arise out of distinct and
independent occurrences. The present case is, therefore, neither factually nor
legally connected with FIR No.133 of 2025.
It is
a settled principle of law that the grant of bail in one case cannot
automatically be made a ground for extending the same concession in another
case, particularly when the offences arise from separate FIRs, involve
different recoveries, and are based on independent sets of facts. Each case is
required to be examined on its own merits and attending circumstances.
Accordingly, the bail order passed in a separate and unrelated crime cannot be
made the basis for grant of bail to the applicants in the instant case.
8. Besides
above, it is a well-settled principle of law that
deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of bail and
from the tentative assessment of material, it is established that the
applicants are connected with the commission of offence as they were arrested
red-handed with heroin and their names are mentioned in the FIR.
No enmity, ill-will or grudge has been alleged against the police officials to
falsely implicate the applicants in the present case.
9. In
view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that on the basis of facts as available
on the record, the prosecution has succeeded in making out a reasonable case
which prima facie connects the applicants with the possession of the narcotics
substances, which constituted an offence under the provisions of the C.N.S.
Act, and therefore, we are of the view that the applicants have failed to make
out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, this bail application is hereby
dismissed.
10. Needless
to say the observations made in this order are of a tentative nature and confined
to the disposal of the present application, therefore, the same shall not
prejudice the case of either party during trial. However, the learned Trial
Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Naveed PA