Sardar MUHAMMAD AZAD KHAN and another vs The STATE
This criminal misc. application seeks post-arrest bail for applicants Sardar Muhammad Azad Khan and Tariq Hussain, who were charged under sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after a huge quantity of heroin weighing 261 Kgs and 292 grams was recovered from a container shipped from Pakistan to Sri Lanka. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the massive recovery of narcotics and the previous conviction of applicant No. 1. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that sufficient material connected the applicants to the offense, that applicant No. 1 was a previous convict, and that narcotic trafficking activities tarnished the country's international reputation. The court laid down the principle that deep appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage where prima facie sufficient incriminating material exists, and prior convictions further disentitle an accused from the concession of bail.
- Whether an accused involved in the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a previous conviction of an accused disentitle him from the concession of bail in subsequent narcotics cases?
- Can deep appreciation of evidence and facts be undertaken by the court at the bail stage?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 7, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 8, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 14, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Applicants Sardar Muhammad Azad Khan and Tariq Hussain seek bail after arrest in case Crime No,35/2013 registered at Police Station ANF, Clifton, Karachi under sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. Record shows that earlier bail application filed by the applicants before the Special Court-II
(CNS) Karachi was rejected by order dated 03.08.2015; the applicant No,1 repeated his second bail application on medical, statutory grounds as well as on merits which was also dismissed by order dated 10.03.2016; thereafter an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. which was converted into a bail application which too was dismissed vide order dated 22.1.2017.
3. Pithy facts unveiled from the FIR are that a huge quantity of heroin i,e, 261 Kgs and 292 grams, concealed in grease tins, was recovered from a container shipped from Pakistan to Sri Lanka; during investigation, after scrutinizing the shipment documents, cell numbers, emails both the accused were found involved in commission of offence and were arrested.
4. Arguments advanced by learned counsel and Special Prosecutor ANF are considered and record has also been perused. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicants have falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives and they have no nexus with the consignment. He further argued that there is no evidence against the appellants and there are contradictions in the evidence brought by the prosecution. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that applicants may be admitted to bail as the applicants are not previously convicted, hardened and disparate criminals. To support his contentions learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon the cases of Qadir Bakhsh and 5 others v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1251), lmtaiaz Ahmed v. The State (2017 SCMR 1194), Jamsheed Ali v. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 1022), Muhammad Usman v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 558), Adman Prince v. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 147), Dr. Asim Hussain and others v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 631) Abdul Razak Zangejo v. The State (PLD 2012 Sindh 218) Ziauddin v. The State (PLD 2012 Sindh 147), Mian Manzoor Ahmed Watto v. The State (2000 SCMR 107) Muhammad Saeed Mehdi v. The State and 2 others (2002 SCMR 282), Naimat Khan v. The State (2013 PCr.LJ 1162) Khamiso Jatoi v. The State (2014 SLJ 304), Muhammad Ejaz alias Juggi v. The State (2008 PCr.LJ 1162), Noshad v. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 1901), Muhammad Hanif v.
The State (SBLR 2016 Sindh 29), Qamar Hussain v. The State (2011 YLR 2327), Muhammad Mansib v.
The State (2016 SLJ 349), Nazeer Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2009 Karachi 191), Ateeb ur Rehman alias Atti Mochi v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 1424).
5. Conversely, the learned Special Prosecutor ANF opposed the concession of bail to the applicants on the ground that the applicant No,1 is a previous convict in some other case. Learned Prosecutor has emphatically submitted that it is settled that at the bail stage the appreciation of facts in depth cannot be considered and the Court at the bail stage has to look into the material available on the record, to determine the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. To support his contentions he has placed reliance on the cases reported as Socha Gul v. The State (2015 SCMR 1077) and Nasiruddin Abbas v. The State (2005 UC (Supreme Court) 395).
6. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any mis-reading, non-reading of material and law available on the subject. Applicant No,1 is a previous convict in some other case by Special Court CNS Rawalpindi, which fact conceded by the learned counsel for the applicants.
No enmity, or grudge has been alleged against the prosecution witnesses; on the contrary, sufficient material has been brought by the prosecution on the record. Case law cited by the counsel for the applicants is not attracting in the circumstances of present case. It is not out of context to mention here that such activities are giving the country bad reputation in the international community of nations. In view of whatever mentioned above, I reached at the irresistible conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it at an earliest, preferably within a period of three months, after receipt of this order and in failure of the trial Court to conclude the trial within specified period, the applicants may repeat the bail application, if so advised.
7. Before parting, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever.