1989 P Cr (PLP)

S. Sarfraz Ahmad, Asstt. A.G. for the State (1) Exempted. (2) This is an application for bail made on behalf of applicant Mst. Akhtar Bibi, who is facing trial for the offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The bail application made on her behalf was rejected earlier by Mrs. Qaisar lqbal, find Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), vide order dated 1‑11‑1988. 2. On 13‑10‑1988, at about 8‑05 p.m. Mst. Akhtar Bibi clad in Burqa was apprehended near Sohrab Goth, Karachi, and from her possession two kilograms of `Heroin' powder was recovered by the Excise Inspector in presence of Mashirs Liaquat Ali and Abdul Fareed Khan. The said powder was sent to Chemical Examiner, Karachi, for examination and report. The report of the Chemical Examiner disclosed that it was powder of Heron of commercial grade. 3. I have heard Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmad, A. A. G. on behalf of the Slate. The learned A. A. G. has opposed the bail application. 4. It is contended by Mr. Gul Zaman Khan th4i the applicant is a woman having a suckling baby and her case, therefore, falls under proviso (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which constitutes the exceptions even in the case of heinous offences punishable with imprisonment for life. He has plated reliance upon the cases reported as Mst. Takharey v. The State N L R 1986 Cr. L J 439 and Fatima Bibi v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 1271. Reliance is also placed upon two unreported orders in Criminal Bail Application No. 3 of 1987 Mst. Zar Malik v. The State and Criminal Petition No. 60‑K of 1987 Mst. Zar Bano v. The State. All the above authorities are distinguishable. The quantity of Heroin powder recovered in the above cases, except that of Zar Malik v. The State, was small one. Mst. Zar Malik was allowed bail on the ground that the `Heroin' powder weighing 2 kilograms was secured from a basket lying in the bus in which she was travelling and her exclusive possession was not established. 5. The offence with which the applicant is charged is punishable with imprisonment for life. There is alarming increase of such cases. Proviso (1) also gives discretion to the Courts to order release on bail of any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person. It cannot, however, be said that the bail must be granted to a person falling within proviso (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. under all circumstances. Discretion in itself implies vigilant circumspection and care. Therefore, when the legislature concedes a wide discretion to a Court, it also imposes a very heavy responsibility upon it. 6. There is prima facie evidence on record connecting the applicant with this crime. The applicant was found in possession of two kilograms of heroin powder. The only fact that father's name of one of the Mashirs is wrongly mentioned in F.I.R. has hardly any value at this stage. Having regard to these circumstances, I am in agreement with the view taken by learned Additional Sessions Judge when she states that the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail in a case of this nature. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed. S.A./A‑491/K Bail refused.