2008 P Cr (PLP)

On the report of Inspector S.H.O. Syed Muhammad Mustafa of A.N.F. Clifton, the respondents were detailed in Crime No.24 of 2007, registered under section 6/9(c), C.N.S. Act, 1997. It is, spelled out from the F.I.R. that the respondents Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Imran Ali Shah were arrested along with Akbar Ali Shah on 29-9-2007, from the possession of Syed Mansoor Ali Shah nothing incriminating was secured while from the possession of Imran Ali Shah 10 grams cocaine was secured. Upon an application filed by the respondent under section 497, Cr.P.C. Special Court-I, C.N.S. Karachi enlarged them on bail vide order dated 21-10-2007, which is assailed by the appellant by resorting to section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail. It is urged by Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi, learned S.S.P. appearing for A.N.F. that the impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity as the trial Court was not empowered to grant bail to the respondent under section 51 of the C.N.S. Act, 1997. It is urged that the evidence available with the prosecution suggests implication of the respondents along with one Akbar Ali Shah involved in the same crime and from his possession 1.4 kilogram of heroine. When confronted with the position as to whether the address of main accused Akbar Ali Shah was the same as that of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant replied in negative. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has opposed the application that the meagre quantity of cocaine secured from the possession of the respondent No.2, would not implicate him with co-accused, therefore, the impugned order is based upon appreciation of the true facts as depicted in the F.I.R., therefore, the bail granted to the respondents does not call for interference at this stage. We considered the arguments advanced at bar. Bail is granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation which has been laid down in 1999 PCr.LJ 174 that the legitimate grounds recognized for cancellation of bail are: (i) If the bail granting order is patently illegal, erroneous factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (ii) Some fresh facts or material has been collected by the police during the investigation which may tend to establish or point the guilt of the accused. (iii) That the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity. (iv) That he interferes with the course of investigation. (v) That he admits to tamper of the prosecution evidence. (vi) That he threatens the witness or indulgence in similar activity which hampered the smooth investigation and there is likelihood of fleeing to other country. (vii) That he may himself escape by going underground or becoming not available to the investigating agency. Accused attributed specific role of having deprived of the complainant of huge amount found guilty during investigation. Mere fact that the offence not falling under prohibitory clause accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. It seems that case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant reported as in the case of Qadarmand v. Muhammad Amroze and 4 others 1998 SCMR 497 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity patent on the face of record resulting in the miscarriage of the justice, therefore, impugned order does not call for any interference at this stage, resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.239 of 2007 hereby stands dismissed in limine along with listed application. N.H.Q./S-30/K Petition dismissed.