2008 PLP 1426 (MLD)

KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.

This bail application has been filed on behalf of Applicant Abdul Mannan, who was arrested by the Excise Police in case F.I.R.'No.01/2007, under sections 6/9-C, CNS Act 1997, PS Excise (PIB) Sindh Karachi on 2-2-2007. Allegation against the applicant is that on 2-2-2007 he was apprehended by Nisar Ahmed, Excise Inspector of Provincial Intelligence Bureau, Sindh Karachi while he was driving Toyota car No. V-4077. Another accused namely Muhammad Ismail was sitting with him on the adjacent seat. Upon searching the vehicle, from the concealed cavities under the dashboard of the vehicle 132 Kgs of Charas was recovered in the shape of rods. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused Muhammad Ismail has been granted bail by this Court in Bail Application No.51 of 2008 by order dated 30-1-2008 therefore, on the rule of consistency this applicant is also entitled to the grant of bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length who has also taken additional grounds that the samples were not taken from all 136 rods recovered from the vehicle, but it has only been taken from five rods. He has relied upon a case reported in PLD 2004 SC Page 856 wherein in the similar circumstances the accused facing conviction and sentence of life imprisonment was acquitted. He has also relied upon 2000 MLD Page 117, 1999 MLD Page 453, 1989 PCr.L.J. Page 2456, 2007 PCr.L.J. Page 89, unreported Bail ApplicationNo.40 of 2008 of Karachi High Court, 1979 SCMR Page 9, 2007 YLR 2742. Most of the authorities produced by the learned Advocate are on the point of consistency. The learned counsel for the State Syed Muhammad Ali Mirza has vehemently opposed this bail application and has stated that the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused who has been granted bail. The present applicant was driving the vehicle. He was sitting on the driver's seat and strong presumption is that he had the knowledge of hidden contents of Charas in the vehicle. The learned State counsel has posed a question that the Applicant has not shown any where during investigation his purpose of visit to Karachi as to why was he coming to Karachi and that also in an expensive car. There can be no other purpose except to transport the Charas The rule of consistency is not available to the present applicant: The second point regarding taking of samples from five rods and not from the entire quantity may be a good ground for trial, but is not attracted for the purpose of bail. Accused has not taken the plea that the remaining rods which were recovered from the vehicle were not Charas, while the prosecution has presumed the same as Charas and have ceased it. I have heard both the counsel and have perused the law cited at bar as well as order passed by this Court in Bail Application No.51 of 2008. I am in agreement with the learned State counsel that the role assigned to the present applicant in this case is distinguishable from that of the co-accused, who has been granted bail by this Court and as such this accused cannot claim benefit of bail on the rule of consistency. I am also in agreement with the learned State counsel that taking samples from a few rods and leaving the some cannot help the accused at bail stage, as the recovered contraband is available with the Investigating Officer. No enmity has been shown with the Excise police for false implication of the accused. A huge quantity of the Charas has been recovered and as such applicant is not entitled for bail. His bail application is rejected. M.B.A./A-82/K Bail refused.