Ameeria Shaheen VS The State etc.

ORDER-SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Misc. No. 1829-B/2025 Ameeria Shaheen Versus The State.

S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of parties order/ order/ or counsel where necessary. proceedings Proceedings 06.11.2025: Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari, Advocate for petitioner, Ms. Huma Tariq Sheikh, SPP, Irfan, SI with record.

Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J: Listed criminal misc. in terms of Section 497 Cr PC stems from FIR No. 816, dated 20.09.2025, registered under sections 9(1)6C, 9(2) 5 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, (‘Act of 1997’) at Police Station Lohi Bher Islamabad, on the complaint of Shahzad Rafique SI with the allegations that on 20.09.2025, at about 08:10 pm, on spy information, petitioner was apprehended from the area of Korang Town Service Road, Islamabad and contraband narcotics ‘heroin’ weighing 1378- grams and 550 grams Ice was recovered from her possession.

2.Heard. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was arrested at the spot with huge quantity of contraband i.e. 1378-grams heroin and 550-grams Ice. Sufficient incriminating material in the shape of complaint, recovery memo and statements of prosecution witnesses, is available on record which, prima facie, connects her with the commission of alleged offence.

3.Furthermore, as per recovery memo whereby previous record of the petitioner was taken into possession, petitioner is involved in two other cases of like nature, whereas her spouse and son are involved in 13 other cases of like nature This aspect makes the case of the petitioner one falling under exception where in case of her release on bail, possibility of repetition of offence cannot be ruled out. The offence alleged is not only heinous in nature but an offence against the society and cannot be taken lightly.

4.Adverting to second ground, under the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr PC, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, in a case where the accused is a minor under the age of sixteen years, a woman, or a sick or infirm person, even in a non-bailable offence of prohibitory clause, in the same manner as bail is granted or refused in offences of non-prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr PC. Therefore, it is to be examined as to whether the case of the petitioner falls within any of the three exceptions to the rule of granting bail i.e. likelihood of the accused (a) to abscond to escape the trial; (b) to tamper with the prosecution evidence, which includes influencing the prosecution witnesses; or (c) to repeat the offence.

5.The offences relating to narcotic drugs are of such a nature that does indicate the likelihood of the repetition of the offence by the accused. Dealing in narcotic drugs is usually the business of the persons involved therein, and is not a spontaneous or one time act, and the women are often involved in it as carriers for the transportation, supply and sale of narcotic drugs. The likelihood of such an offence being repeated by the petitioner cannot, therefore, be ruled

out. The case of the petitioner thus comes within the scope of the exception of likelihood of repeating the offence. The petitioner is found not entitled to the relief of bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr PC also. Reliance is placed upon cases of “Mst. Fursan v. The State” (2022 SCMR 1950) and Tahira Batool v. The State (2022 SCMR 1950).

6.In view of above tentative assessment, petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail at this stage, consequently, listed criminal misc. is dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to make every endeavor to conclude the trial at the earliest by keeping it on fast track preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. The observations recoded hereinabove are tentative and shall have no impact upon merits of the case.

(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) (ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR)

JUDGE JUDGE

Shafqat