Imtiaz Ali (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)

6'?o

IN TI1E HIGH COURT OF SIi{DH,

CIRCUIT COURT HYDERAEAD

Before tttr. :*tr"" Moharnmad I(arim l(han Aghtr

Cr, B.A. No.S-l74 of 20i1

Lntiaz Ali

Verstts

The State

pplica nt : Imtiaz Ali ugh em Abro, Advocate

Itc s ondent: fhe State 'llxou lv{r. Sir aild .A.hrtred Shaildr, A.P:L'] Date of l.rearing 06.04.201'7

Date of order 07.01.2017

ORDER

tire applicant ]\IOI{AM1!IAD KAIU lVT KHAN AGHA J.- Through this applicalion, (lmtiaz Ali) seeks post-auest bail irr Crime No.29 of 2C1l, regrstered at Ptrltce Statron (CNSr\)' iIalaNerv, undcr sectioir 9(c') o1 control of Narcotio Substatrcr:s u\ct I997 SIP Muhamnrarl I The thcts of the case in brief are that on 09.0i:..2017 conrplainant Laiq Bliutto along with hrs sub-ordinate police petsoturel dr'rring patrolling irr hirr

.juL.rsdiction rcached. at Dargah Mai satr Graveyard, apprehended rhe applicant whilc he 1730 3rams of u,as cl.il'ing Mehrau Car beuing l'egisttatiol No.A\rlrl-670 a1d secured charas liom his possessign. Out c\f total narcotic 15(t g1r-n-'s ol chaLas rvete sealed separale[1'' scltarately for chemical exaniitatiOtl r ,'lleleas reuraiuing llal:cotl(' vvas sealecl 'i'h,: \,lel.rren Car rvas also seized undet'.sectiot't 55g CLP C Thereaiter, the recovct ed niu.cotic, vehicle and t[e appiicalt rvere bt'ought at Police Statron where FIR r'vas lodged

Aftcr usual investigatron, the chalian was submitterl tretbre the 1r'ral cor-tt't'

3.Leamed connsel fol the applicant coltenc]ed that the appiicant rs cornpletely luxlocent and has been falsclf involvcd itl tlle presetlt rl.Irlc b"- tlie police clue to,uon-

pa-v-ment of illegal gratilicirtion demanded by SHO PS H:r1a; thrl tire applicarrt is a letiled alleged [arcotic i'las soldier from Pakistan Army and rururillg a grocei'y shop; that tlie that the allegecl offence is bcen sent for.chemicai exanilation atier air unexplained deiav. punishable 1br' 05 r,ears atrd 06 tlotlt|s as tluly- 1.'l jIiG cf charas has bectt recovere'J' 197 CL P'C; that the hence it doss nor fali r,r,iLhrrr the prohibitory clattse ,.rf se;tiort applicant should applica[t has no cnminal histr)ry an,l that tbl alI the abovc reason:; the bc e niat geci on post arrest L.'ail \ / i',-/

6't t

4.In support of hiS cr-rnteirtj,-rns ic:inrr:i rounsei i':)r'tl'trr, irl;li,:atrt relied upoil the cases of Raja Muhammad Younas v. The state (201? s [: ]4 l?- 669). The state v. Javed Khan (2010 s cMR 1989), Wajid alias waji r," The state(2016 PCr. Li 831).Ali Hassan alias Hasan v. The state (?014 Y L R 188), Gtrulam. Hussain v' The state (2014 Y L R 874), Nadeem Zafarv. The State (2Ol4Y I- R 636) and Muhammad Naeem-ul-Haq v. Muhammad lqbal and,3 others (2012Y L P- 85).

+ 5. Leamed A.P.G. for the State whiie opposing the bail application contended that the applicant is not entitled for bail as there is sufficient material on record to sl-rrlw that he had committed the offense for which he is charged u,hich is a heiuous one and against society, that his case falls under S.9(c) CNSA, that it falls within the prohibitory clause and as such the application tbr post anebt bail should be declined'

6.In support of his contentions learned A.P.G. relied upon the cases oF The State through Director-Gcneral Alti-Narcotics Forco, Ra+valpindi v. Abdul Ghani (2010 s c M R 6l), Nadeem Ashraf v. The state and others (2013 s c M R 1538) and Socha Gul v. The State (2015 S C M R 1077).

l. I have heald the learned counsel for the applicants, APG. Betused the record. considered the relevant law and the case law cited at the bar'.

8.As per settleil law I have only made a tentative assessment of the rnaterial placed before me and this order shall not prejuclice the case oi'ary palty at triai which shall be 1' decided by the trial court on merit based onthe evidence bbfore it.

9- Firstly I note that the applicant's appiication for post arrest bail was dismissed by the trial court by detailed older dated 22-02-2017 and hence the applicant has now approached this court for post arrest bail.

10.I do not find the case law cited by the applicairt tc, be of utuch assistance to him This is because each case is to b9 judgecl on its own particuiar facts and circumstances.

1i. In this case the applicant has been exclusively caugl"rt in possession of 1.73 I(G of charas in a stolen car and the cbaras is undoubtedly linked to hiil, The quantity of charas is approx 1.7 KG and as such it will attract the provisions of S.9 O CNSA and will falt within the prohibitory ciause bearing in mind the findiirgs of tire Hon'ble Suprerne Court \* in Socha's case (Supra) whiclr clistinguished the case of Gliulam Murtaza V State (ii-D 2009 Lah 362) in respect of casos concerning the grant of liail. that the chemical report has proved positive, that any delay in forwarding the chemical report rvill not be fatal tb the prosecution case as the wording in S.a(2) of tire Conhoi tlf Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Ituies 2001 (the i{ules} is directory as oPPosed to mand.atory in nature .Reference in this iespect t16'7 be made to the case of Tariq Mehrnood V State (PLD 2009 SC P.39), that ther rrprrlicani has pr:oduced uo material to show any malefide on the part of the police a:rd hru simply nlade a bald aliegation and as

(-,-l>

suoh thls argument uf a firl se alld collcocted i-'IIt i:r tt:'t s,rstalirable and is rejected.In tltis t'espect ret'erence ma1, usetuili, lrc rnarle ro the oase o[ Dolat tihan V 'fhe State (20I6 SCMR i447); that lt is a clurre rigainst so()!ctj.ai"io irt the hght of S.il CNS,I\ antl Socha's case (Supra) bail shouid only be granted irr such c;tses rpat'urgh

12.In rny view prima facic there also appears tc be suflicient matet'ial oll t'cc(lrd to link the applicant to the commission of the offense for which he is charged Acldrtioually {- in tny vierv the charge has already bcen ll'arned and thct.c ate only tu'o PW's to be cxamined and as such it is a lit case rvhich can be dealt w'ith by giving apptopriate directions to the trial Coult.

i3. Thus, based cn the parliculal facts aud circturrstances of tiris case thc post arrest bail of the applicant is dismissed Horvever'. the tril.,l Court is riilected to courl;lete the trial u'ithin 2 rnonths o1 thc date ol this order. Thc ollrcc shali tiunsrrrir 1s,,1,v o[ rhrs orcler' [o thc concenred trial coult lrr compliance !- tr- .

tlyderabad IUDGti

Dated: 07-4-2017

^'t

\r