2002 PLP 1773 (YLR)

Khursheed A. Hashmi, Dy. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 6th August, 2002. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, on 6‑10‑2000 one Abdul Hakeem tried to smuggle, out of Pakistan, heroin powder weighing 2.3 k.gs. alongwith his baggage, by Flight No.PK‑731 bound for Jeddah. The Customs officials checked the baggage containing the heroin powder and in the meanwhile the passenger Abdul Hakeem slipped away. During investigation on the basis of air ticket it transpired that, the air ticket was issued through Messrs Umsan Travelers at the instance of one Abdul Salam on credit. Abdul Salam was joined in the investigation and he disclosed that, the air ticket was arranged at the behest of Haji Ibrahim of Quetta. On further investigation it transpired that applicant/accused Abdul Sattar was instrumental in getting the passport of absconding accused Abdul Hakeem and arranging the air ticket in collusion with Haji Ibrahim. The Investigating Agency, found Haji Ibrahim and applicant/accused Abdul Sattar son of Ali Muhammad, to be involved in trafficking of heroin powder through the paid agents. On the basis of above material, the applicant was sent up to face trial before the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances) Karachi. The learned trial Court rejected the bail application for the reasons that, there is evidence on the point that the applicant Abdul Sattar took the passport and air ticket of the passenger Abdul Hakeem who attempted to smuggle out the heroin powder but the bid was foiled by the Customs officials. Being aggrieved the applicant has submitted this bail application before us. Heard Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Khursheed A. Hashmi, learned Dy. A.‑G. for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, there is no direct evidence establishing involvement of Abdul Sattar applicant in the commission of offence. He has contended that, it is a case of further inquiry and the case has not proceeded for the last 20 months, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Dy. A.‑G., has opposed the bail plea contending that, the offence under section 9(c). Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is punishable with death as well as fine which may be up to one million rupees, therefore, the bail plea may be rejected. He has further contended that, the offence alleged against the applicant is a very heinous offence and in fact is an offence against the entire humanity, therefore, the persons involved in such heinous offences are not entitled to any indulgence. He has further submitted that, it is provided in section 8 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that, no one shall organize, manage, traffic in, or finance the import, transport manufacturing or trafficking of, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances". According to him, the modus operandi of the actual drug traffickers and gangsters is that they organise, manage and finance the trafficking of the drugs in contravention of the provisions contained in sections 7 and 8, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, through their agents on payment of petty amount. The passport and all other traveling documents including air passage is managed and organized by the drug gangsters and the carriers are invariable the poor and needy persons. He has maintained that, in the present case there is sufficient material with the prosecution to establish that, the passenger Abdul Hakeem was merely a carrier which in the common parlance is called "Khe‑pia", while the actual organizers, managers and financiers were behind the curtain, which include, the applicant Abdul Sattar and co‑accused Haji Ibrahim. The learned Dy. A.‑G., has vehemently opposed the bail plea. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties and the material placed on record. We have gone through the statement of Haji Abdul Salam, who has stated that, he is a cloth merchant and has air ticketing business as well. He was contacted by. Haji Ibrahim, who is his old client on telephone and requested for issuing a ticket for Jeddah for a person through his relative namely Abdul Sattar. On 1st October, 2000, Abdul Sattar reached at his residence and handed over a passport in the name of Abdul Hakeem son of Mullah Qarshi. He got ticket issued for Jeddah on credit being regular client of Messrs Usman Travelers. He handed over the ticket of Abdul Hakeem as well as his passport to Abdul Sattar on 6‑10‑2000. The date of offence is also 6‑10‑2000 and this statement of Abdul Salam prima facie connects the applicant Abdul Sattar with the organizing and managing Oil trafficking/export of heroin powder through carrier Abdul Hakeem and consequently, a prima facie case of commission of offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has been made our against the applicant Abdul Sattar. So far, the contention that it is a case of further inquiry, under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is concerned we do not find any substance in it. The reason being that, it is provided in subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. that, if it appears to the Court at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non‑bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry be released on bail. Thus, the condition precedent for bringing a case within the purview of further inquiry envisaged under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is that, it should be shown to the Court that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non‑bailable offence. In the present case, there is material on record to show that the applicant managed and financed the trafficking/export of heroin powder through the carrier Abdul Hakeem and therefore, the case of the applicant does not fall within the purview of further inquiry envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, the bail application stands dismissed. S.M.A.H./A‑362/K Bail refused.