ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S- 752 of 2010
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For orders on office objection.
2. For orders on MA 3589/10.
3. For hearing.
12.11.2010
Mr. Zahoor A. Baloch, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Amjad Ali Sahito, Special Prosecutor for A.N.F.
=
By this order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No.S-752 of 2010, filed by applicant whereby she seeks bail in Crime No.10/2010 of P.S A.N.F registered U/s 9 (c) of C.N.S Act, 1997.
According to prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR No.10/2010 at Police Station A.N.F, Hyderabad, the applicant was apprehended by staff of A.N.F while she was in possession of 3.750 Kg charas. Out of which 40 grams were sealed separately for chemical examination.
The bail plea of the applicant has been turned down by the trial Court vide order dated 13.10.2010.
It is inter alia contended that applicant alongwith her minor daughter aged about two years has been falsely implicated; the applicant is house wife and she was taken away from her house in absence of lady searcher therefore, the very arrest and recovery is doubtful; FIR is belated by 1 ½ hours, applicant has been implicated on account of old enmity with Excise and A.N.F officials; both the mashirs are male members which creates doubt about the search and recovery proceedings; only 40 grams charas have been sent for chemical examination and at the most accused would be held responsible for 40 grams charas; previously applicant’s mother in law had filed an application U/s 22-A & B Cr.P.C against the A.N.F officials with the prayer for providing legal protection to her and her family members; applicant alongwith her minor daughter has been booked in a false case due to previous ill will as there existed a dispute between applicant’s mother in law and police officials; applicant has been arrested from a thickly populated area and no private person has been cited as a mashir to attest the recovery proceedings. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Mst. Shah Jehan Bibi Vs. The State (2009 P.Cr.L.J 702).
On the other hand, Mr. Amjad Ali Sahito, Special Prosecutor for A.N.F opposed the bail application on the ground that huge quantity of contraband charas has been recovered from the applicant therefore, she does not deserve the concession of bail. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the case of The State through Director General, Anti Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi Vs. Abdul Ghani (2010 SCMR 61), Mst. Robina Kausar Vs. The State (2002 P.Cr.L.J 746) and Hameedan Bibi Vs. The State (2001 P.Cr.L.J 1296).
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly 3.750 Kg charas has been recovered from the applicant for which she has been booked U/s 9 (c) of C.N.S Act, 1997 which offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. As far as bail plea on the ground that minor baby of the applicant is ratting in jail, in this respect the applicant can handover her daughter to her husband or mother in law where minor will be properly cared. Now a days the people involved in the drug trade have changed their modus operandi, they have also joined their womenfolk in this illicit business with sole object that in case the women are arrested they would be dealt with some leniency. As far as the plea of false implication is concerned, in this regard learned counsel for the applicant could not place on record any document to show the previous enmity between A.N.F officials and applicant’s family. Ss far the violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C is concerned, same has nothing to do with the narcotics cases as Section 25 of the C.N.S Act has excluded the applicability of Section 103 Cr.P.C to the case under this Act. So far as non-joining of any lady constable is concerned, in this regard the prosecution has furnished a plausible explanation as they received the spy information while A.N.F police was on patrolling therefore, contention of learned counsel for applicant in this regard is untenable. So far contention with regard to delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, same is also devoid of force as alleged incident had taken place at 1505 hours whereas the FIR was lodged at 1630 hours as the FIR was lodged after preparing mashirnama of arrest and recovery and later on complainant party came at their office and lodged the report. With profound respect the law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, same is not helpful to the case in hand as the age of applicant’s daughter is more than two years as such she cannot be treated as a suckling baby nor learned counsel for the applicant has stated so.
For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the bail application which is accordingly dismissed alongwith listed application. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within two months and shall not adjourn the case on any flimsy ground.
JUDGE
Tufail