SHABBIR Versus State
ORDER
KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J.--- Through captioned application, applicant Shabbir seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 57 of 2008; offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad, District Mirpurkhas.
2. Allegation against the applicant is that he along with co-accused namely Ghulam Qadir were present at Old Cotton Factory near By-Pass, having plastic shoppers in their hands containing narcotic substances. On seeing the police party, they attempted to flee away, but the co-accused Ghulam Qadir was apprehended, whilst applicant while throwing away the shopper containing 3 Kilo-grams of charas, escaped through the bushes.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been involved in this case by the police with mala fide intentions just to harass and humiliate him; that nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged recovery is planted one; that there is no evidence whatsoever collected by the Investigation Officer to connect him with the .alleged thrown polythene bag containing charas; that there is no legal evidence against the applicant; that the applicant is behind the bars and is no more required for further investigation; that case against the applicant is one of further inquiry.
4. The learned A.P.G controverts the stance of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that a huge quantity of narcotic substance has been recovered from the packet thrown by the applicant; that the applicant failed to explain his noticeable abscondence.
5. Heard. Record Perused.
6. Be that as it may, the allegation against the applicant is that being chased by the police party, he threw the polythene bag of contraband charas weighing 3 kilograms and fled away from the scene of occurrence. The charas in question has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is only evidence against the applicant is that his name has been disclosed by the co-accused at the time when he was apprehended by the police. The applicant is behind the bars and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. The further incarceration of the applicant is not likely to further the prosecution case.
7. It is well established principle of law that; bail can be granted if an accused has good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion would not come in way while granting the bail. In this respect reliance may be placed on case titled as Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCMR 299).
8. For what has been discussed above, the case against the applicant is one of further inquiry into his guilt as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I accept this application and admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Two hundred thousand only) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
9. It is, however, clarified that tile observations made hereinabove are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail application.
MQ/S-70/Sindh Bail granted.