2008 P Cr (PLP)

Basharat alias Kala son of Waris Masih petitioner, seeks his post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.14, dated 12-8-2005, under sections 9(c), 14/15 of C.N.S.A., at Police Station A.N.F.-1, Rawalpindi.

2. Bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Judge, Special Court, C.N.S., Rawalpindi vide his order, dated 30-11-2006, hence, this petition.

3. As per contents of the F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner is that on spy information, the petitioner was sitting in a taxi along with two other co-accused namely James Masih and Arif Masih. James Masih was plying a taxi Suzuki Car FX No. RIN-27 being its driver, which was stopped by A.N.F., Rawalpindi whereupon Charas weighing 5 Kgs. was recovered from shopping bag held by the petitioner, whereas, Arif Masih was sitting on the back seat of the said taxi car. All the above stated three accused were. booked in the above stated F.I.R. who applied for grant of post-arrest bail. The two co-accused namely Arif Masih and James Masih were allowed the concession of bail whereas, the petitioner was declined the same relief.

4. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been involved without any reason in the said case. The recovery was effected from the taxi where the co-accused of the petitioner were also sitting who have already been released on bail, therefore, on the principle of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. contends that James Masih was the taxi driver whereas Arif Masih co-accused was sitting on the rare seat of the taxi and nothing was recovered from them. The role attributed to the petitioner is that the alleged Charas was recovered from the bag held by the petitioner, therefore, case of the petitioner is not at par with the co-accused who have already been released on bail. The offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in view of prohibition contained in section 51 of C.N.S. Act the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

6. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. co-accused James Masih was the taxi driver whereas Arif Masih co-accused was sitting on the rare seat of the taxi and nothing was recovered from them. The role ascribed to the petitioner is that he was holding a shopping bag containing the alleged 5 Kgs. Charas therefore, case of the petitioner is not at par with the co-accused who have already been released on bail. There are sufficient grounds for believing that the petitioner is connected with the alleged crime. The offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in view of prohibition contained in section 51 of C.N.S. Act, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. This being so, this petition fails and is dismissed. H.B.T./B-39/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.