2003 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Pervaiz Aftab and Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner. Muhammad Mumtaz Malik, Special Public Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotic Force for the State. Abdul Mutalib, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.4, dated 21-3-2003, under section 9(c), 'Control' of Narcotic Substances Act XXV of 1997, registered at Police Station; Anti-Narcotic Force, Multan.

2. Briefly the allegation as contained in the F.I.R. is that on 21-3-2 3 Capt. Shaukat Jawad, Additional Director, ANF received spy inform ion that a Jeep bearing No.1333-MNH carrying narcotic substance would be coming to Multan after crossing the Chanab Bridge who on this information constituted a raiding party and reached near Chanab Bridge at about 6-00 a.m. The jeep crossed the s: id bridge at about 9-00 a.m. which was intercepted and the same was being driven by the petitioner. On search five packets of Charas weighing 1200 grams each and 600 grams opium was found lying in the carton. The petitioner, on interrogation, allegedly disclosed that the said narcotic substance had been delivered to him by his co-accused Zaman Khan alias Zimi.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been roped in; that he belongs to seventh generation of Khawaja Suleman Taunsvi of Taunsa Sharif; that he was follower (Mureed) of Khawaja Noor Muhammad Maharvi of Chishtian Sharif and for the last 15/16 years is constantly going to offer Jumma prayer at Chishtian Sharif after having travelled from Taunsa Sharif; that he runs a Langer Khana in spiritual obedience to Khawaja Noor Muhammad Maharvi; that on the day of occurrence he had proceeded from Taunsa to Chishtian Sharif and Zaman Khan, his co-accused was also accompanying the petitioner and he was not aware of the fact that the Charas and opium was being transported by them and the petitioner at the most can be termed as a carrier and his case falls within the purview of further inquiry; that his co-accused Zaman Khan was arrested on the same day and he had exonerated the petitioner in his statement made at the time of his arrest; that an application was moved by the petitioner under section 22(b), Cr.P.C. in which the statement of his co-accused Zaman exonerating the petitioner was recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan during the inquiry and several other persons also sworn affidavits in favour of the petitioner; and .that the plea of approver which was also recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation can be considered at bail stage. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Lt.-Gen. (Rid.) Fazal Haq v. The State 1989 SCMR 2071. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the petition on the ground that the huge quantity of Charas and opium has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner that the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. having been submitted in the Court and the trial has already commenced; and that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable with death or transportation of life which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

5. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made and have gone through the relevant record.

6. The huge quantity of Charas weighing 6 kgs. and opium 600 grams has been recovered from the jeep which was being driven by the petitioner. According to the prosecution case, on an information received by the Additional Director a raiding party was constituted which reached the pointed place and when the said jeep being driven by the petitioner was asked to stop he did not do so, who was chased by the police party and apprehended at a distance of one furlong, which prima facie belies the version of the petitioner. Prima facie the petitioner is involved in the case falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

7. It is strange enough that the application was moved by the petitioner on 14-4-2003 when after the submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. in the Court of competent jurisdiction, the charge had already been framed and the trial commenced. In these circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan was not empowered to record statement of co-accused and admit the affidavit sworn in favour of the petitioner in view of the section 22(b), Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, from the bare perusal of section 22(b), Cr.P.C. it reveals that the inquiry could only be conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge before the registration of the case. According to the prosecution story the petitioner alone was apprehended in the jeep alongwith the narcotic substance and no mala fide has been alleged against the police for his false implication, in this case. There exists no ground for bail. Dismissed. H.B.T.IA-862/L Bail application dismissed.