TAHIRA BIBI vs THE STATE and anothers

ORDER

' For having been arrested on the charge of possessing contraband charas weighing 1020 grams, heroin weighing 250 grams and an unlicensed pistol, the petitioner, who is a lady, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,9/12, dated 3-1-2012, for an offences under sections 9(b) and 9(c) of the Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2. A salient, feature, which makes the instant case distinguishable from the other cases, registered for identical offences is that the complainant in this case is a public person, namely, Bilal Arif, who joined by other co-villagers intercepted Mst.Tahira Bibi (petitioner) and her four daughters, Mst.

Uzma, Mst . Asma, Mst . Sidra and Mst.Sobia, when they were allegedly selling narcotics to the drug- addicts' and recovered from them contraband charas, heroin and a numberless pistol. It has been alleged by the complainant that a number of youthful persons of his village had succumbed to the evil of addiction and it was Mst.Tahira Bibi (petitioner), who was responsible for their tragic end.

According to the police proceedings recorded by Jan Muhammad, A.S.-I., he reached the place of occurrence at 1-10 p.m. On 3-1-2012, where Bilal Arif complainant produced the petitioner and her four daughters before him and also handed over to him the aforesaid quantities of charas and heroin besides an illicit arm, who, took these articles into possession, segregated samples from the said quantities of drugs for chemical analysis and took the female accused in custody.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is A observed that the allegation against the petitioner is vague and shadowy inasmuch as it does not reveal as to the time of occurrence, the names of the drug-addicts allegedly buying narcotics from her at the crucial hour and the names of the addicts, who perished in the noxiousness of the drug-trade, the petitioner and ' her co-accused were in. The petitioner has been stated to be a highly dangerous character for the youths of the area but there does not exist any evidence to believe such an attribution, as she is a previous non-convict, though, has the history of involvements in six other cases of identical nature. It looks pretty improbable that the accused-petitioner had her four youthful daughters with her at the time of alleged occurrence nor does it make a sense that they all had been 'hunting' as a team. According to the record, the petitioner was involved in a narcotic- case pertaining to year 1993, followed by a case of identical nature in year 1997, and after a gap of three years another, case of the same kind in year 2000, followed by three more cases of alike nature in year 2002, 2008 and 2012. Keeping in view the aforesaid list, it can be presumed that all the above said cases might have been decided by now as considerable time period has gone by since then. The hesitation on the part of the learned Law Officer to raise an argument qua the conviction/sentence of the petitioner, if any, sufficiently proves that she has not been condemned in any of the said cases by the trial Court. Mere factum of involvement in a number of criminal cases without conviction in any cannot be deemed sufficient to label a person a dangerous criminal. According to the learned Law Officer, the report of Chemical Examiner has not been received as yet. The petitioner is a female, whose case is covered by the first proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. She, after having been arrested on 3-1-2012 stands incarcerated eversince. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and his co-witnesses had malicious, and vindictive intentions against the petitioner and her daughters for a spiteful purpose, requires serious consideration, but it is .a circumstance, to be looked into by the trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties at trial. No useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period of time, only, to satisfy the whimsical grudge of the complainant.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.