MUHAMMAD ZESHAN Versus State

ORDER

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Applicant Muhammad Zeeshan seeks bail in crime No. D030707716, registered at Police Station M.A. Society, Korangi-Karachi, for the offence under sections 6/9(c), C.N.S.A. Earlier the bail plea of the applicant was refused by the learned Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances), Karachi vide order dated 21-12-2016 impugned hereinabove.

2. The sum and substance of the prosecution story as is envisaged in the FIR is that applicant was found in possession of plastic shopping bag containing contraband Charas, weighing 1400 grams: as alleged applicant was standing with intention to sell the contraband inside street, Qavi Goth near Foot Ball Ground, Malir Karachi; hence this FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; per learned counsel the place of arrest of the applicant is/was thickly populated area but police did not associate any independent person of the locality to witness the incident; per learned counsel the applicant is an employee of the Textile Company; per learned counsel the quantity of contraband do not cross the borderline; per learned counsel all the prosecution witnesses are police officials and there is no question for tampering with the prosecution evidence; per learned counsel the applicant is no more required for further investigation purposes, per learned counsel the applicant may be enlarged on post arrest bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case reported in 2011 PCr.LJ 177, 2016 YLR 389; 2016 PCr.LJ 1718, 2016 SCMR 1424, 2016 YLR Note 74, 2016 PCr.LJ 730, SBLR 2016 Sindh 29, 2014 YLR 772, PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1007 (DB) and 2016 PCr.LJ 1315.

4. Learned Special Prosecutor representing the State contended that applicant has been rightly booked in the present case; per learned counsel serious nature contraband has been recovered from the possession of applicant; per learned counsel applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail.

5. Heard.

6. After bare perusal of the material available on record. It is pertinent to mention here that presumption would be gathered that when spy and the police party were travelling together towards the pointed place where the applicant was standing with intention to sell out contraband (Charas) but police failed to associate any independent private witness, Charas weighing 1400 grams was allegedly recovered from the accused, which was slightly higher than the maximum weight mentioned in section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; thus, a meager quantity of the narcotic substance, that was 400 grams of Charas, had brought the present case within the mischief of section 9(c) of the Act. Question as to the net weight of the recovered narcotics and whether the case fell within the ambit of section 9(b) or 9(c) of the Act would be determined after recording of the evidence; more so the case of the applicant does not cover within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. as per Murtaza's case reported in PLD 2009 [Lahore] Page 362 the punishment provided for the recovered quantity is four years, six months and fine of rupees twenty thousand; as otherwise there is no police record disclosing that applicant is previous convict or hardened criminal or the habitual offender; it seems that applicant is first offender; applicant is in jail since his arrest and if applicant is bailed out there would be no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence as all the mushirs are police officials, therefore I am inclined to grant him bail.

7. As a result of above discussion, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand) only and P.R.Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Note:- The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of prosecution.

WA/M-33/Sindh Bail granted.