P L D 1991 Quetta 43 (PLP)

W.N.Kohli for Petitioner_ Salahuddin Mengal Asstt. A: G. for the State. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1991. Facts according to prosecution briefly stated are, that petitioner on 17‑12‑1990 while driving Car No.2357 I.D.C. from Pishin to Quetta was intercepted near Grid Station Surkhab Road by Special Gusht Party of Pishin Police and on search secured 55 Killos of Charas lying concealed in said Motor Vehicle. In pursuance thereof F.I.R.1298/90 was lodged with Pishin Police Station under section 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 8/14, Dangerous Drugs Act.

2. After completion of investigation challan No.30 of 1990 has been submitted in the Court of Sessions Judge, Quetta. Petitioner moved an application before trial Court seeking his release on bail which was rejected. As such he has approached this Court. Mr.W.N.Kohli, learned counsel for petitioner contended that primarily allegations suggest mere possession of Charas, which under section 4 of Prohibition Order, is boilable. However alternately even if from stated circumstances offence under section 3 of Prohibition Order is made out, the maximum punishment prescribed would be 5 years, which does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. To supplement his submissions, reliance has been placed on (i) Abdullah v. State 1986 PCr.LJ 1969 and (ii) Bashir Ahmed and others v. State 1987 PCr.IJ

750. Mr. Salahuddin Mengal learned Assistant Advocate, General emphatically opposing the application argued that material available on record sufficiently proves transportation of huge quantity of Charas by petitioner, which obviously was intended to be used for nefarious purposes constituting an offence under section 3 of Prohibition Order. I have perused record of the case, which indicates transportation of huge quantity of intoxicants/Charas by the petitioner. It may be seen that import, A export, transport, manufacture or processing of any intoxicant has been made punishable under section 3 of Prohibition Order, prescribing imprisonment for 5 years and whipping. Undisputedly in non‑bailable offences grant or refusal of bail rests with sole discretion of Court, which has to be based on sound judicial considerations irrespective of prohibitory clause contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. However, in such mourn accused is not entitled to bail as of right. It cannot be conveniently overlooked that use of intoxicants is considerably increasing, and fast B extending its adverse effects towards youth of the country. Apparently relaxed view in granting bail for offences resulting in violation of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order tends to promote illegal trafficking, and anti‑social activities. Keeping in view legal and factual aspects with utmost respect I am not C inclined to follow the conclusion of aforequoted judgments. In similar circumstance this Court (Chief Justice Abdul Qadeer Choudhary) in Bail Application No. 100/1989 Abdul Razak v. State decided on 4‑6‑1989 refused bail in the following terms: "The punishment extends to five years with whipping. As the applicant is involved in a serious offence and huge quantity of Charas was recovered from the co‑accused who were engaged by the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of bail. As such his bail application is rejected." For the aforesaid discussion and observation of unreported judgment reproduced above, I do not find it a fit case for exercising discretion in favour of petitioner. Bail application, accordingly stands rejected, N.H.Q/369/Q Bail refused.