ZUBAIR S/O MURAD KHAN & ANOTHER (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

TED €N

o 2D?5

\ WK}.W

rN rHE rroNouRABLE rrrcrr J5#S;:nffl;rff.", pait Applicario nNo / [ ^l 1 zoz4ll ii,;)

e<1

Applicant/Accused

.t.

The State a Respondent.

FIR No. 525/ 2024 a/S: 6/2H) CNSA,2022 P.S: PIB Colony

PPLI ON ND R oN4 OF Cr.P.C

{ * i o :i .t ,.€,s

I

b-

2-7b

\i'

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Crl. Bail Application No.l r 4 of qosS . Applicants :1. Zubair son of Mur.ad I{han.

Through Mr. Abduj Rau[ adv. for Applicant/accused.

Respondent rThe State Through Mr. M. Raza, Dy. prosecutor General Date of ffearing I 14.f.5.9O96 Date of Order : et.O3,9oe5.

ORDE R.

.Ian un€ o The present Criminal Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the Applican t/Accused, who is seeking post-arrest bail in connection with a case stemming from FIR No.5e5 of CO24., registered at P.S. P,I.B. Colony, Karachi, under Section o/S(+), of the Control ol Narcotic Substances Act, 199? (amended in gogg) The Applicant/Accuseci initially approached the learned Sessions Court by filing Bail Application No.69ri5 of 2024, which was subsequently dismissed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,/Special Judge-I, Karachi-East, vide Order dated es-t.g-goeq

The facts relevant to the present criminal bail application are as, follou,s

'Acting on a tip-off received during patrol, SIp Muhammad Qasim Ali and police officials intercepted suspects Zubair (son of Murad l{han) and Murad Khan (son of Abdut Rasheed) near University Road, I{arachi. at approxima t€ly 4.:So AM. A search reveilctl 160 grams of ICE in l,tl packets fi.om Zubair's lrameez pocket, along with cash and his CNIC, while 95O gramc of ICE in 18 packets were recovered from Murad Khanb bag, alongside cash and his ID. The searches, /l .conducted without private witnesses but with police of[icials ., as mushirs, Ied to the accusedb arrest under Section 6/g(-t) CNSA 9099, witlt recovery memos prepared on-site and seized drugs sealed and taken into custody."

9.The learned counsel for the Applicant has ar.gued that the applicants (hther and son) are innocent victims ofmala fide implicatiort falsely accused due to collusion between authorities and influential neighbors, with no credible evidence linking them to the alleged offense.

t2t

He further contends that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay ol1 hour and zO minutes despite the police station being merely g lmr from the incident site, casting doubt on its authenticify. He argues that the applicants have no direct or indirect connection to the alleged crime, rendering the case fit for further inquiry ancl warranting bail, He asserts that the applicants were illegally detained after a warrantless rairl by Sindh Rangers on OS-tg-glq4, during which nothing incriminating was- found. The FIR was later foisted upon them dfter their family resisted extortion demands. He emphasizes that'the FIR is retaliatory, triggererJ by the applicants' prior petitions seeking protection from harassment ancl thr:eats by rieighbors over property disputes. He higNights that Applicant No. I was acquitted in FIR No. 7 g/ zogs and gr.anted bail in three / ). . subsequent false FIRs (zoe+), wllere he rvas falsely declaretl an J "absconder." The current FIR is a pre-emptive tactic to obstruct his bail confirmation in another case. He stresses the prosecution's lailule to associate independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a POP ul a ted area, wiolating Section tOg Cr.P.C. and rendering the recover;, d (1,1ti b tful He submits that under Sections 6/9(4) CNSA .qoqa, tlle (l. \ o I]-I mum punishment of T years falls outside Section 49? Cr.p.C.'s :l tn ctl e clause, making bail permissible. He underscores that the s\ [-r recovered quantities (t6og and esog ICE) qua]i$ as borderline cases (below t,ooog), where bail is routinely granted, He nraintains that the applicants, with no prior convictions or history of absconding, are entitled to the presumption of innocence and pose no risk of tampering with evidence. The learned counsel prays that bail be granted to the applicants in the interest of justice, as the case suflers from material contradictions, procedural irregularities, and a lack of independent evidence, warranting further inquiry. The learned counsel reliecl upon 1997 SCMR 947; 2015 SCMR 7ss; eoee YLRN .13 (Muhamnrad

tsl

) I

Younis vs State); zo17 yLR s74; 2016 SCMR 1424; 2ot5 SCMR loi?;

solz.SCMR szs; pLD gots SC 980; zot6 p.Cr.L.J 1o7s, ssr, a rf lsl5.

+. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General (DpG) contends that the applicants are charged under Sections 6/9(4) CNSA 9Oe9 involving the

recovery of+to grams of ICE, a commercial quantity, which falls within the restrictive clause ofsection 49? Cr.p.C., warranting strict denial of bail. He argues that the prosecution has established a prbna facie casi \ through recovery memos, sealed parcels, and police witnesses, u,hose testimonies cannot be discarded nrerely for being officia). He emphasizes that the delay in FIR lodging (r hour go minutes) is justified for procedural compliance and documentation. He further assert.s that the absence of private witnesses does not vitiate the recovery, as police officials acted as rzzs,trlrs under exigent circumstances (nighttime operation), and reliance on precedents llke gotg SCMR e\g supports such procedural validity. The DpG rejects claims of mala fifu implication, .. stating no evidence proves collusion between autl.rorities and neiglrbors, ri hile the applicants' prior acquittals/bail in unrelated cases do not negate tt culpability here. He underscores the gravity of drug trafficking, o hlighting the rish ofapplicants absconding or tampering rvitl.r er.irlence, +H given their history of multiple FIRs. The DpG concludes ihat the case does not qualiS as "borderline" (total recovery: alOg), and bail must be denied to uphold public interest and deterrence under CNSA,

5.I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, a.5 u.ell as the learned Deputy.

secutor General. Furthermore, I have rneticulously examinecl the I- material available on record with utmost care ancl. judicial prudence. A thorough review ofthe case record indicates that the quantity of ICE drug recovered from Appiicant Zubair is 160 grams, while 9do grams \rere seized from the possession ol accused Murad. Both quantities are belorv

J

)nq

t4l

l00o grams, meaning the aileged offense does not fall uncler the prohibitory clause of Section +S?(t) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, as the challan has already been submitted, the continued incarceration of the appiicants would serve no meaningful or beneficial purpose. In Case of Aya Khan and another u The State (so9o SCMR J5O/, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that: "Withor.t discassing the merits of the case lest it prejudiee the case of one or the other side, sffice it to say tlrut h the FIR or itt the recovery rnemo, nowhere it is stated that whetlrcr ttwas net or gross ueight of the narcotics and in this eoentuality it becomcs a bordtr line between .case

subsections (b) and (c) q1f section g, C.N.S.A., 1s97. Thus tlze benefi.t of doubt in tlti: aspect fiall go to tlu accused". In a similar case, Mst. Nazia and another v. The State (9094 MLD g4S), this Court granted bail to an accused charged with the possession of + kilograrns of charas, 2.5 Itilograms of ice, and 5oo grams of heroin powder, highlighting thar the- case warranted further inquiry. In light of these circumstances, the rr. 4- I ?

o applicant is entitled to bail based on the provisions ofSection {.9?(z) ol the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P,C.).

il u

6.For the reasons outlined above, the current bail applications submitted on behalf of the applicants / accused are granted as prayecl. ,} -f Tire. applicants/ accused are hereby granted bai'l on the condition that they furnish solvent sureties of Rs.tOO,OoO (Rupees One Hu:rclred Thousand) each to the satisfaction ofthe learned trial Court, along rvith a P.R. bond for the same amount. The observations made in this Order are limited to the adjudication of this bail applications and ivill not affect the rights of either party during the trial. These are the reasons \ for the short Order dated: t4-O3-9O25.

GE