P L D 1989 Karachi 40 (PLP)

Shahzad Alam Mirza and another v. State 1988 P Cr. L J 1646 and Malik Muhammad Khan v. State 1988 S C M R 1476 ref. M.A. Kazi for Applicant. Zaheer Qureshi for the State. Applicant in this case, Mst. Amina, has been sent up in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi (Central) to stand trial under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 as 50 grams of heroin are alleged to have been secured from her possession. According to the facts stated in F.I.R. a police party headed by Muhammad Younus Choudry, Sub-Inspector of Police was patrolling the area known as Khando Goth when they received spy information that a woman in Moosa Gali sitting on Charpai opposite to her house is selling heroin. The police party, therefore, reached that place at about 6-30 p.m. and found the said suspected woman sitting on the Charpai opposite to her house. On her personal search 25 plastic bags containing heroin were secured from -the fold of her Shalwar. The heroin in all weighed 50 grams. She was arrested and after normal investigation has been sent up for trial as stated above. The trial Judge rejected her bail application on the ground that the offence she was accused of is punishable with life imprisonment and selling of heroin was becoming common in the society and deserved to be dealt with severely. Mr. M . A . Kazi, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has pressed this application mainly on the ground that the applicant is a female having a suckling child and, therefore, in the circumstances she is entitled to grant of bail. He has filed the birth certificate of a baby boy born to the applicant on 28-7-1986 to A prove that the child is of suckling age. Reliance has been placed on the cases of Mst. Khatija v . The State published in 1987 P Cr. L J 1359 and unpublished judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Criminal Petition No.60-K of 1987 (Mst. Zarbano v. The State). Mr. Zaheer Qureshi appearing for the State opposes the grant of bail as the offence is punishable with imprisonment of life and case has not proceeded as yet. He stresses that selling of heroin is a social evil and the applicant does not deserve to have the benefit of the concession of bail. In the case of Mst. Khatija v. The State reported in 1987 PCr.LJ 1359, the learned Judge considered the grant of bail because woman applicant in that case had s suckling child and in the other case of Mst. Zarbano decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan the petitioner was a woman with suckling child who had fallen ill. It was, therefore, contended that tier remaining in jail will be detrimental to the health of the child. The contraband articles in that case were secured from her house which was not a public place and the offence was bailable by virtue of the Article 16 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The child in this case according to the birth certificate filed with the application was born on 28-7-1986 and is not living with hi-. mother in jail. The age of the child is over two years. In Muslim Society a child continues to be a suckling child at the most up to the age of two years only. It cannot be said that in the present case the child is of suckling age. The two cases referred to by Mr. M.A. Kazi, Advocate for the applicant have no application to the present case. The narcotic paddlers have indeed eroded our entire society both urban and rural. Of late I have noticed that women are being pushed into the illicit trade of the contraband drugs in order to evade detection and conveniently penetrate deeper in the society These are the facts of life today of which judicial notice can always be taken by Courts. The legislature has amended the provision of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by enhancing the sentence in cases where more than 12 grams of heroin are secured. In 'my view in order to discourage the commission of such offences it is in the larger interest of the society that strict view is taken in matters o! grant of bail in such cases. In this view of the matter I am fortified by the principles enunciated in the cases of Shahzad Alam Mirza and another v. The State reported in 1988 P Cr. L J 1646 and Malik Muhammad Khan v. The State published in 1988 S C M R page 1476. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant at this stage and the bail application is rejected. It will, however, be open for the applicant to repeat bail application after the complainant is examined by the trial Court. The trial Judge is directed to at least examine the complainant in the case within one month. M.Z.S. /A-434/K Application dismissed.