2022 P Cr (PLP)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

The applicant Dur Muhammad is seeking post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No 30/17 at PS. ANF, Muhammad Ali Society, Karachi under section 6/9(C), Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced from the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Special Prosecutor, ANF and perused the record present and/or produced before me. After getting enlightened from the valued submissions made at bar and scanning the record, I have observed as under: (a) The allegations against the applicant is that he was apprehended by the raiding ANF party, who on a tip of apprehended the applicant from Jinnah International Airport while he was trying to go Jeddah through Saudi Airline and from his baggage 1.700 kg methamphetamine and 200 grams of heroin were recovered. In total the gross weight of narcotics with packaging comes to the tune of 1.940 kg. (b) As per allegation, 200 grams of diamorphine (heroin) and 1700 grams of methamphetamine were recovered from the applicant. The psychotropic drug diamorphine (heroine) comes under Narcotics Schedule-I of UN Convention of Psychotropic Substance while methamphetamine comes under Narcotics Schedule-II of the same convention. (c) It will make no difference that the applicant is a first offender and no previous record is produced by the prosecution regarding his involvement in narcotics trade or transportation. (d) The applicant was arrested from airport, while he was trying to go KSA. The accused, who are involved in trading/transporting narcotics out of country may also fetch bed name for country, as such they directly affect the populace of Pakistan. (e) Accused had not been able to refer to anything from the record which could suggest that the complainant or any other member of the raiding party had any enmity with the accused. (f) The learned counsel for the applicant after relying on the case reported as Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (PLD 2009 Lah. 362), contends that the punishment is lesser I am of the view that the dictum of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) case can only be considered at the time of sentencing. I fortify my view from a case reported as Socha Gul v. The State (2015 SCMR 1077), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "It is pertinent to mention here that offences punishable under C.N.S. Act of 1997 are by its nature heinous and considered to be the offences against the society at large and it is for this reason that the statute itself has provided a note of caution under section 51 of C.N.S. Act of 1997 before enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary course. When we refer to the standards set out under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act of 1997. even on that basis we find that an accused charged with an offence prescribing various punishments, as reproduced above. is not entitled for grant of bail merely on account of the nature or quantity of narcotic substance being four kilograms. Firstly, as deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and secondly, in such situation looking to the peculiar features and nature of the offence, the trial Court may depart from the normal standards prescribed in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) and award him any other legal punishment Thus, in our opinion, ratio of judgment in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) is riot relevant at bail stage.- (g) As far as direction is concerned the same is given with intention to ginger up the trial Court for early disposal of the cases. The time given in the direction may be extended by this Court looking at the circumstances. In direction cases It is advisable for the trial court to furnish report before expiry of date with request of extension of time.

3. In view of the above discussion. I am of the opinion that a case of bail has not been made out as such the bail is dismissed. However. the earlier direction given to the trial Court is extended for a further period of three months from the date of communication of this order to trial Court. MQ/D-4/Sindh Bail refused.