1986 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 103‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail sought on ground that witnesses of recovery of heroin did not belong to locality‑‑Respectability of said witnesses not challenged‑‑Superior Courts, held, have laid emphasis on respectability of Mashirs rather locality they come from‑‑Section 103, Criminal Procedure Code, held further, is strictly applicable in case when recovery is made from certain premises‑‑Bail refused. P.M. Amer assisted by Syed Shakir Ali for Applicant. A.A. Muhammadally, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. The applicant has been sent up to face trial under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The allegation against him is that 350 grams of heroin were secured from his possession. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged for bail on two grounds. His first contention is that out of 15 packets of heroin allegedly recovered from the applicant only one packet containing 24 grams of heroin was sent to Chemical Examiner. Therefore, according to him, it cannot be held that other packets also contained the heroin. His next submission was that the Mashirs in whose presence the recovery was made did not belong to locality even though the place where the recovery was made was thickly populated. The learned Asstt. A.‑G. has opposed the bail application. It may be observed that punishment prescribed for possession of heroin exceeding ten grams is life imprisonment. Therefore, even if the packet sent to the chemical examiner is taken into consideration, the accused will be liable to punishment upto life imprisonment. Moreover in the cases involving recovery of heroin the Courts have been slow in granting bail. The reasons for such tendency are too obvious to be repeated here. The trafficing in the heroin has assumed the shape of a racket which has not only tarnished the good name of the country but has also seriously jeopardized the health of its citizens who are used to taking that narcotic. I need not re‑exmphasize that bail should be discouraged in such cases. As for Mashirs the learned counsel has not called in question their respectability. The cases are not wanting in which superior Courts have laid emphasis on respectability of Mashirs rather the locality they come from. Even otherwise section 103, Cr.P.C. is strictly applicable in the case when recovery is made from certain premises. For above reasons I find no justification to interfere with the order of the trial Court declining bail to the applicant. Application is accordingly dismissed. H. A. K. Bail refused.