ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 172 of 2010.
Date Order with signature of Judge |
Present before: Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, J
1. For order on M.A No. 955/2010. (Certified copy of annexures not filed) 2. For Hearing
|
||
Yousuf Khan |
………………Applicant
|
|
Versus |
||
The State |
…………….Respondent |
|
|
||
For the Applicant |
Hafiz Sardar Nawaz, Advocate |
|
For the Respondent |
Mr. Abdullah Rajput learned A.P.G for the State alongwith I.O Tufail Ahmed of P.S Baghdadi. |
|
|
||
Date of hearing: |
26-07-2010 |
|
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J: Through the instant application, the applicant Yousuf Khan seeks post arrest bail in crime No. 165/2008 of police station Bughdadi, Karachi registered U/Ss: 6/9-C, CNS Act.
Facts of the prosecution case in nut shell are that on 24.05.2008, the applicant was arrested by a police party headed by S.I. Baghdadi Mashooq Ali Jaskani and from his possession, police recovered 40 K.Gs Charas and Rs.150/-.
It is interalia contended that he applicant is innocent and nothing has been recovered from his possession. Per learned counsel, 8 days prior to this case, an other case bearing crime No. 157/2008 was registered against the applicant, but he was not arrested in this case, therefore, this false case was registered against him. He has further submitted that the sample of contraband Charas was sent to Chemical Examiner after delay of 10 days, which amounts the violation of rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotics Substances Government Analysts Rules 2001, as the I.O was required to send the samples within 72 hours. Learned counsel further went on to say that though the police had advance information even then none independent witness from the locality was joined to attest the memo of arrest and recovery. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the cases of Abdur Rasool versus THE STATE (2009 P Cr. L J 558), Haji Javed Ahmad and another versus THE STATE (P L D 1997 Karachi 156), Awal Khan versus THE STATE (2009 P Cr. L J 102), Muhammad Hassan versus THE STATE (2010 P Cr. L J 572 Karachi) and Sardar Amjad Ali Khan versus THE STATE 2009 S C M R 425).
Conversely learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that huge quantity of Charas was recovered from the applicant and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has been involved falsely or the charas has been foisted upon him.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly 40 K.G charas which is a huge quantity has been recovered from the possession of applicant. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has been involved due to any previous ill will or enmity with the police, however it can not be expected that such a huge quantity can be foisted upon the applicant by the police. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant requires deep appreciation of the evidence and it is almost settled law that while deciding the bail application, only the tentative assessment can be made. So for the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, with profound respect the same is distinguishable and not helpful to the applicant. In Sardar Amjad Ali Khan’s case (Supra), the applicant was admitted on bail as he was suffering from a Chronic liver disease (HCV +VE) and he was behind the bars for more than 4 years and trial was not concluded. In Abdur Rasool’s case (Supra), the applicant was admitted on bail on the basis of inquiry conducted by an honest officer, and some foul play was found on the part of complainant Inspector. In Haji Javed Ahmad’s case, the applicant was granted bail on the ground of statutory delay i.e third proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C. In Awal Khan’s case (Supra), the applicant was already in custody in some other case and led to the recovery of one hand bag containing 2.5 K.Gs of Charas, whereas in the case in hand huge quantity has been recovered from the applicant. In Muhammad Hassan’s case (Supra), Charas weighing 1100 grams was allegedly recovered from possession of accused, but he was granted bail on the ground that mashirs of arrest and recovery did not support the case of prosecution and they categorically stated that accused was innocent and he had been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant. Due to registration of this false case, the complainant was reverted from S.I.P to A.S-I.P and was kept under suspension by the orders of RPO of the region, not only this but S.P. (Investigation) had also recommended for cancellation of the case. In the light of facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the considered view that there is sufficient material to show that the applicant is involved in the case which falls within the prohibitory clause of 497(1) Cr.P.C and he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Bail Application is devoid of merits and same is dismissed accordingly. However trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within reasonable time.
For the foregoing reasons, the bail application was dismissed by short order dated: 26.07.2010.
JUDGE
Karachi
Dated .
Abdul Salam/P.A