ABDUL SATTAR Versus State

ORDER

MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.--- Through instant application, applicant Abdul Sattar who has been indicted in Crime No.55/2017 registered at Police Station Kandhra for offence under section 9(c), CNS Act, 1997, seeks post-arrest bail after rejection of his bail application by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Sukkur vide order dated 24.11.2017.

2. The facts in nut shell are that on 28.09.2017 at 5.15 pm complainant SIP, Ashiq Ali Mirani along with his subordinate staff arrested the applicant-accused from the road near village Ibrahim Dayo, on spy information, and recovered shopper containing 3000 grams of charas in six pieces, each piece was found to be of 500, grams. On inquiry the accused disclosed his name as present applicant. The complainant separated 100 grams from each piece and sealed for Chemical Examiner. Complainant prepared such mashimama in presence of PC Naeem Ahmed and PC Abdul Qadir and brought the accused and property at Police Station and registered the FIR.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant-accused contends that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case at the instance of his enemies; that the alleged charas has been foisted upon him; that the police party proceeded towards the place of incident on advance information but did not join any private person which is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. that the applicant-accused is in jail hence he is no more required for further investigation, therefore he prayed for grant of bail. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon case of Noshad v. The State (2012 PCr.J 1901).

4. Conversely, learned Addl.P.G opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was arrested along with charas and the offence for which he is charged falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C, as such he is not entitled to grant of bail. He relied upon case of Dolat Khan v. The State (2016 SCMR 1447).

5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant-accused, learned Addl.P.G for the State and perused the record. It appears that the applicant accused was arrested at spot and huge quantity of charas, i.e. 3000 grams was recovered from his possession which being costly cannot be foisted. The sample was taken from all six pieces and was sealed. at spot and sent to the Chemical Examiner. The report of Chemical Examiner reveals that recovered property is charas. Learned counsel for the applicant, has filed to show enmity with the police or any reason for false implication of the applicant in the case. The witnesses in their 161, Cr.P.C. statements have fully supported the version of FIR. Furthermore, the offence for which the applicant has been charged falls within restrictive clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C, it is made clear that application of 103, Cr.P.C. in Narcotics cases has been excluded by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

6. The facts of case law relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are different from the facts of case in hand. In case of Dolat Khan v. The State supra relied upon by learned Addl.P.G, the Honourable Supreme Court has declined bail to the accused from whom 2400 grams of charas was recovered.

7. For what has been discussed above, I find that no case for exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant is made out, consequently, instant bail application being devoid of merits is dismissed, however learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case preferably within a period of three months. In case the trial is not concluded within stipulated period, the applicant would be at liberty to repeat bail application.

HBT/A-36/Sindh Bail refused.