KAAZIM HUSSAIN vs The STATE

ORDER

ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. Through instant application, the applicant/ accused seeks post arrest bail in case crime No.58 of 2019 registered at Police Station Bela under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter "the Act"). Earlier bail application filed by the applicant/accused before the Court of Special Judge, CNS Lasbela at Hub was rejected vide order dated 06.07.2019 (hereinafter "the trial Court").

2. Brief facts of the prosecution's case as disclosed in FIR No.58 of 2019 are that on 28.06.2019 the complainant SI/SHO Muhammad Jan of Bela police station received information that one person namely Kazim Hussain Pathan was doing business of narcotics drugs on motorcycle and was coming from Bela-cross towards the city. On receipt of said information; a raiding party was formed consisting of ASI Abdul Hakeem, Head Constable Qadir Bakhsh, Head Constable Muhammad Yousuf under the supervision of SI/SHO Muhammad Jan. They started checking and at about 10:30 hours they found one person sitting on a motorcycle, while one shopper was hanging on the handle of his motorcycle. They apprehended him and opened the said shopper wherefrom Charas was recovered, which was weighed with the scale, and found to be 1600 grams, whereas from personal search of the accused 200 grams of Ice (Sheesha) was also recovered. The recovered contraband were sealed on the spot for purpose of chemical analysis. Thereafter the police lodged the FIR under Section 9(c) of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel further argued that despite availability of a large number of people, no private person was associated during recovery proceedings. He lastly submitted that it is a case of further inquiry and therefore applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned DPG opposed the contentions so raised. by learned counsel for the applicant/accused and contended that a huge quantity of Charas and Ice (Sheesha) were recovered from the applicant/accused. He further submitted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. It may be observed that the applicant was apprehended red-handed, while in possession of 1600 grams of Charas and 200 grams of Ice (Sheesha). The offence, for which the applicant/accused has been charged, falls under section 9(c) of the Act, as the quantity of Charas recovered from the applicant/accused is 1600 grams and Ice (Sheesha) is 200 grams. It is pertinent to mention here that offences punishable under the CNS Act, 1997 are heinous in nature and considered to be offences against the society at large, and it is for such reason that the statute itself has provided a note of caution under section 51 of the CNS Act, 1997 before enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary course, when we refer to the standards set out under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under section 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997. Needless to mention here that a person accused of spreading a deadly poison i.e. the narcotics, in any society is not the kind of person who qualifies for the grant of any discretionary relief unless such a person could demonstrate that he was entitled to the grant of bail in view of the principles contained in section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

6. Reverting to the arguments of non-performance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C., section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes applicability of section 103, Cr.P.C. Reliance is safely made in the case of Socha Gul v. The State 2015 SCM R 1077.

Even otherwise, the members of the public are reluctant to offer themselves as witnesses in criminal cases and that in the circumstances no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution for not associating such like persons as witnesses. Needless to say that the members of the Police force are competent witnesses in the eyes of law and could be credited with veracity unless it could be demonstrated that they are false witnesses and had maliciously accused an innocent person of the commission of an offence for ulterior motives. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Afzaal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCM R 573.

7. For whatever has been mentioned above, we have reached at the irresistible conclusion that the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.

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.