2018 PLP 237 (YLRN)

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.

Through this application, applicant Ayaz Ali Detho is seeking his admission to post-arrest bail in a criminal case originated on the basis of FIR No.19 of 2018, lodged at Police Station Civil Line, Larkana, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. His, similar plea was declined by learned trial Court, vide its Order dated 17.04.2018. The allegation against applicant is that, a police party headed by complainant ASI Zulfiqar Ali Kalhoro during routine police patrolling, arrested the applicant and from his possession 05 kilograms charas was recovered, in the presence of recovery witnesses. The learned counsel for the applicant mainly contended that the applicant has been implicated in this case by police due to mala fide intention and ulterior motives and due to police enmity, as according to him the police is inimical towards applicant. Learned counsel submits that, earlier in time the applicant had filed criminal miscellaneous application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. against police before learned Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace, Larkana. Per learned counsel the applicant has also filed a petition bearing No. S-159 of 2017 before this Court against the police. He further contended that there is delay of five days in sending the samples for chemical analysis and that no any independent person has been cited as witness/ mashir. Conversely, learned A.P.G. appearing for the State vehemently opposed grant of bail in favour of the applicant on the ground that a huge quantity of contraband Charas has been recovered from possession of applicant which being very costly cannot be foisted upon him. Per learned A.P.G. the police witnesses are as good witnesses as others. There is recovery of huge quantity of charas, i.e. five (05) kilograms, which is sufficient to belie the contention of foisting at-least at this juncture of the case. The learned counsel took the plea that the police is inimical to the applicant/ accused as he has already filed an application against police under Section 22-A Cr.P.C, and so also a constitutional petition before this Court. In this respect, I am of the view that this defence plea comes under the deeper appreciation of evidence, which is not allowed at bail stage. As far as the plea of non-associating of private witnesses is concerned, it is a settled legal position that the police officials are competent recovery witnesses unless something contrary is established against them during trial, which is persuasive to believe about foisting the narcotics. This plea is also not considerable, as it too requires graver and deeper appreciation of evidence, which is formidable at bail stage. Perusal of impugned Order reflects that the report with regard to contraband charas has been received to it, which is in positive. Furthermore, the offence with which the applicant stands challaned falls within the prohibitory clause. As the tendency of using narcotics is rampant in our society and now the narcotics paddlers succeeded to penetrate in our education institution, it is; therefore, the demand of time that such persons should not be dealt with in leniency. A concession in granting bail to such accused would be unfair, and even, if the accused is released temporarily, in all probability, he would continue the similar activity of dealing in contraband substance. There is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicant with the commissioning of heinous offence and such type of crimes are on the rampant and against the society. In the instant matter, prima-facie no case of further enquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. has been made out for the grant of bail and accordingly the bail application stands dismissed. It is however made clear that, the above observations are purely tentative in nature, and the same are only meant for the purpose of bail and would have no impact or effect on any party during the trial. MQ/A-69/Sindh Bail refused.