P L D 1989 Quetta 60 (PLP)

Petitioner is apprehended in connection with a case registered by Levies authorities on the complaint dated 23‑10‑1988 lodged by Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Turbat under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. According to prosecution petitioner was caught 'red‑handed' through a fake customer while selling huge quantity of 'Heroin'. Initially petitioner was released by learned Sessions Judge, Turbat vide order dated 26‑11‑1988, but subsequently petition seeking cancellation of bail moved by Sub‑Divisional Magistrate was accepted by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 19‑12‑1988 which has now been assailed.

2. Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad, learned counsel for petitioner emphatically contended that petitioner did not violate concession of bail granted to her on 26‑11‑1988, therefore, subsequent cancellation was unwarranted. He canvassed that while granting bail trial Court had duly considered relevant facts available on record. Since there was no change in the circumstances, therefore, cancellation was unlawful. He argued that in the absence of Chemical Examiner's report, recovered substance cannot be definitely deemed heroin. Learned counsel further canvassed that provisions of section 497/498, Cr.P.C. otherwise provide concession to a woman but trial Court ignored all these aspects while passing order dated 19‑12‑1988. Besides on the plea of first offender reliance was placed on the observation in case Babar Islam v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 2779. Whereas learned .A.A.‑G. vehemently opposing bail application maintained that contents of F.I.R. and evidence secured during investigation amply establish participation of petitioner in actual sale of narcotics. He vehemently contended that offence alleged against petitioner is punishable for life imprisonment, thus disentitling her from any concession. I have carefully examined both the orders passed by trial Court, and also considered arguments addressed by learned counsel for parties. Evidently, tentative evaluation of material collected during investigation reasonably connects petitioner with commission of offence alleged against her. Circumstances, prima facie show involvement of petitioner in trafficking narcotics. Factually trial Court while passing order dated 26‑11‑1988 disregarded requirements of law concerning grant of bail in an offence punishable with imprisonment of life, besides relevant available facts were also clearly ignored, therefore, in my opinion "trial Court justifiably recalled its earlier order. No doubt, law provides more concessions regarding bail to female accused. Nevertheless discretion in this behalf, must be judiciously exercised looking into respective merits. It is pertinent to note, that narcotics trafficking is becoming great menace to society, by seriously affecting morals of youth. Introduction of ladies for carrying this nefarious business is further detrimental to social fabric. Thus females involved in such degenerated offences would not be automatically entitled to discretion merely by virtue of sex unless law so permits on merits. In the instant case, petitioner is prima facie implicated for the commission of alleged offence. Factum of being first offender by itself. is not sufficient for allowing bail under section 497/498 Cr.P.C. Therefore with utmost respect I would differ with the observation in case Babar Islam v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 2779 relied upon by petitioner. Apparently from the facts on record, conclusions drawn by trial Court in its. order dated 19‑12‑1988 are unexceptionable. The offence is obviously punishable with imprisonment of life. Thus for the foregoing reasons, present petition has no merits. In this view I am also supported by observations in following reported judgments: ‑‑ (1) Nasim Ahmed v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 203; (2) George alias Kaka v. State 1986 PCr.LJ 1086; (3) Syed Suleman Shah v. State 1986 PCr.LJ 2809; (4) Muhammad Anis v. State 1987 PCr.LJ 1386; (5) Bachan Soap v. State 1987 PCr.LJ 1456; (6) Muhammad Hanif v. State 1987 PCr.LJ 59; (7) Haji Muhammad Nakki v. The State 1988 SCMR 162; (8) Yaseen v. The State PLD 1988 Kar.

69. Investigating Agency is however directed to complete investigation within one week and put up challan before Court of competent jurisdiction. It is further observed that petitioner however would be at liberty to move fresh bail application if during trial, case is made out on merits. M. B. A . /322/Q Petition dismissed.