2018 P Cr (PLP)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

Applicants Mst. Naseem Bibi and Bibi Shaheen have filed an application under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 31/2016, under section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered with Police Station A.N.F Sukkur.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant and learned prosecutor have addressed at length. In the light of submissions made before me, I have gone through the record and citation and have observed as under: (a) The allegations against the applicants are that the complainant who is an Inspector of Anti Narcotic Force received spy information about the movement of some drug peddler from Baluchistan to Shikarpur for transporting narcotics with women of his family. On such information; he with staff reached Bab-e-Ghaus Bakhsh Mahar where they saw the reported car of the culprits. The car was stopped, in which notorious narcotics dealer Arbab Shah, his driver Ali Hassan and the present applicants were boarded. From the possession of accused and from the vaults of their car, huge quantity of narcotics was recovered. (b) The learned prosecutor has pointed out that the applicant Arbab Shah was released from jail about a week before his arrest in this case and the applicants are his sister and sister-in-law respectively, which indicate that the main culprit was using these women of his family for the purpose of his illegal business of narcotics as a shield. (c) The applicants are the family members of the main culprit Arbab Shah, who is notorious for a similar offence. The applicants are involved with him in the transportation of a huge quantity of narcotics which is sufficient to attract the meeting of mind i.e. criminal conspiracy of doing a particular criminal act i.e. transportation of drugs in huge quantity. (d) It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that small amount of opium was recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant i.e. 300 grams and 700 grams respectively, as such they are entitled to bail as their case falls under section 9(b), C.N.S., Act. But the fact is that the arrest of applicants with some narcotics from their exclusive possession is sufficient to say that both of them are responsible for the offence, besides the entire recovery of narcotics from the car will be considered as the joint possession of all the culprits including the applicants. It is also worth mentioning that in such type of offences the recovered quantity of narcotics is immaterial. In this respect, I took reliance from a case of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as Sacha Gul v. The State (2015 SCMR 1077). (e) So far as the fact of recovery from the joint possession of the applicants is concerned, in my view, there is ample evidence available on record to hold that the applicants were travelling together and they are womenfolk of the family of the main accused, and at the time of recovery the narcotics were in their joint possession. In this respect, reliance may be taken from the case reported as Inayatullah and others v. The State (2011 PCr.LJ 398). (f) Nowadays, it is a common practice that the narcotics dealers use the womenfolk for the purpose of transportation of narcotics and ultimately mercy was sought against such accused on humanitarian grounds. The honourable Supreme Court has directed to curb this maniac sternly and not to show sympathy in such like case. In this respect reliance, may be taken from the case reported as Surayya Bibi v. The State (2008 SCMR 825).

3. It is my tentative view that there is sufficient material available on record to associate the applicants with the commissioning of heinous offence and such type of crimes are on the rampant and against the society. It is to be borne in mind that the legislative mandate of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act is required to be adhered and followed. It is the demand of the said Act that the persons like applicants should not be treated leniently as they are a hazard to the society. A concession in granting bail on the ground of belonging to feminine gender should be unfair, and even, if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/ or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. In the instant matter, prima-facie no case of further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. has been made out for the grant of bail. Accordingly the bail application was dismissed vide short order dated 24.4.2017, and these are the reasons for the same. The short order is reproduced as under: "For the reasons to be recorded later on, instant bail application is declined. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter and preferably dispose of the same within a period of three months, if the matter is not disposed of within three months, then the applicants may repeat their bail application before the trial Court."

4. I would like to make it clear that the above observations are purely tentative in nature, and the same are only meant for the purpose of bail and would have no impact or effect on the case of any party during the trial. WA/N-17/Sindh Bail refused.