1988 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Heroin recovered from house of accused‑‑Affidavits of witnesses produced‑‑ Witnesses not stating therein that accused was not present‑‑Other witness supporting prosecution‑‑Accused arrested at spot‑‑Reasonable grounds, existed to believe that accused had committed non‑bailable offence‑‑Bail refused in circumstances. Ismail Shah for Applicant. Zaheer Ahmed Qureshi for the State. This is an application for bail moved by the applicant, who is facing trial before the Sessions Court (West), Karachi, for the offences punishable under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance. The brief facts of the case are, that one Asghar Ali was required in some crime of North Nazimabad Police Station, Karachi. On spy information Inspector, Nazar Mohammad, raided the House No. 1726/494 Mohajir Colony, Karachi on 1‑6‑1987. From the house the raiding party secured 7 bags each containing certain quantity of heroin, weighing 900 to 1000 grams. The present applicant, Yaseen, was arrested from the spot, whereas the co‑accused Ghulam Hussain and Imam Bux alias Bakhshal managed to run away. 'Co‑accused Imam Bux alias Bakhshal was granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 27‑8‑1987. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is, that the co‑accused Bakhshal was granted bail by this Court, and that the case of the present applicant is not distinguishable from that of co‑accused Bakhshal. It will be seen, that the present applicant is alleged to have been arrested from the spot, whereas, the co‑accused, who was granted bail, was not so arrested, and further more, the Mashirs in their statement before police had not stated, that they had seen co‑accused Imam Bux alias Bakhshal, running away. The case of the present applicant, is apparently, distinguishable from that of co‑accused Bakhshal, who was granted bail. The fact, that the house from where the heroin was recovered does belong to the present applicant, is not denied. It is, however, contended, that he had given this house on rent to co‑accused Imam Bux alias Bakhshal, and Ghulam Hussain. There is no evidence by way of any tenancy agreement in support of this contention of the applicant. The applicant has produced special power of attorney, whereby he was appointed as attorney, by one, Haji Abtan to look after and manage the house in question. Neither, this Haji Abtan was produced by the applicant before the police to show that the house was rented out to co‑accused, nor his affidavit has been produced in this Court. The applicant had filed affidavits of Aslam Khan, Khair Muhammad and Mistri. Muhammad Muneer, but none of them supports the applicant, that the house in question was rented out to the co‑accused. The affidavit of Mistri Muhammad Muneer, however, supports the prosecution case that 7 bags containing heroin were recovered from the house in question. None of the persons whose affidavits the applicant has filed, state, that the applicant was not in that house and he was called by the police and he was implicated. They state about his good character. Affidavit of Mistri Muhammad Muneer shows, that police had asked him to open the lock of the main door, implying thereby that applicant was not in the house at the time of recovery of heroin, but even he does not state, as to how and from where the applicant appeared on the scene of offence. This witness in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. has implicated the applicant. The prosecution evidence indicates that the applicant was arrested from the house from where 7 bags containing about 7 kilos of heroin were secured in this house, admittedly belongs to the present applicant. From the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and from affidavits filed by the applicant in support of his case it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe, that the applicant has not committed any non‑bailable offence. As such the application is dismissed. S.A.Y‑10/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.