ALI AHMED Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The applicant is facing trial under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.

2. The allegations against the applicant are that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer Mr. Imdad Ali Mughal received spy information that the applicant /accused Ali Ahmed Qasai deals in narcotics and had huge quantity of narcotics in his possession. Therefore the complainant and his sub-ordinate staff and others went to the house of the applicant. They also picked up Mashirs Dhani Bux and Akhtar' Hussain and knocked the door of the applicant on which he came out and after complying with all the necessary formalities and disclosing their identity, they took personal search of the applicant and found four 'Puris' of Heroin from the pocket of his shirt. On further interrogation the accused voluntarily led them to his house and produced three plastic 'Thailis' containing Heroin powder. The entire Heroin was later weighed and it was found to be 80 grams.

3. After necessary investigation the applicant was challaned. He moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, but the same was rejected vide order dated 30-4-1987.

4. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.A. Mohammadally learned A . A .-G. for the State.

5. Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh has contended that Mohammad Ali son of the applicant had filed a complaint against the Police officials on 13-7-1986 and, therefore, the complainant has filed this false case at the instance of those Police Officers. That Mashir Akhtar Hussain has filed an affidavit in the Court exonerating the applicant, and therefore, it is a case of further enquiry.

6. Mr. A.A. Mohammadally, Additional A.-G. appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that 80 grams of Heroin have been recovered from the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that complainant of the present case had any connection or relationship with the Police Officials against whom applicant's son has filed a case. The affidavit does not bear any photo, nor any copy of Identity Card has been produced.

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel ands have also gone through the documents produced by the applicant. Admittedly the complainant of the present case is not a party to the case filed by Mohammad Ali son of present applicant. Even there is nothing on record to show that complainant Imdad Ali Mughal has any connection whatsoever with the accused of the direct complaint. Some of the Heroin was recovered from the personal search of the applicant and the remaining quantity was pointed out by him. The photo or copy of Identity Card have not been filed alongwith the affidavit of the alleged Mashir Akhtar Hussain, and, therefore, there is no guarantee that he is the same person who was made as Mashir by the Excise Police. The case is a recent case and the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. In view of the above circumstances I am of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage.

However, the applicant will be at liberty to move bail application before the trial Judge after at least two material witnesses are examined.

S.A./A-269/K Bail refused.