PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 89
[Balochistan High Court, Quetta]
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ.
Mst. NAZEERAH--Applicant
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. B. Appln. No. 107 of 2023, decided on 27.6.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, (XXV of 1997),
S. 9(6)(c)--Recovery of illegal contraband--Bail, dismissal of--Woman was accused--The applicant was arrested red-handedly and recovery of illegal contraband was effected from her possession, which prima facie suggest that there appears reasonable grounds to believe that applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 9 (6)© of Act of 1997, which provides punishment of imprisonment extending to 14 years but not less than 10 years with fine up to five hundred thousand rupees but not less than one hundred and twenty five thousand rupees, whereas Ice (methamphetamine) being a psychotropic substance mentioned at serial number 47 of Schedule-I entails punishment u/S. 9(4) of Act of 1997 for three years but not less than one year alongwith fine up to one hundred and fifty thousand rupees--The offence punishable u/S. 9(6)(c) of Act ibid squares within ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 51 of Act of 1997, which does not allow applicant to be enlarged on bail. [Para 4] A
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(1), & 497--Control of Narcotic Substances Act, (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(2)(6) & 9(1)(6)(c)--Bail after arrest, dismissal of--Recovery of heroin--Accused was a woman--The proviso of clause (1) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., which extends concession of bail to a woman accused, indulged in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, but we are also mindful of fact that nowadays women folk are involved as carriers for transportation of narcotics, as such, felony alleged being an organized crime cannot be equated with ordinary crimes--Record also reflects that applicant is resident of Shikarpur and there is an apprehension that she will abscond and would not turn up to face trial, as such, we believe that applicant is not of bail--The plea of false implication is concerned, same cannot be attended to at this bail stage as deeper appreciation is impermissible while parting with bail application. [Para 5 & 6] B & C
PLD 2022 SC 764 and 2021 SCMR 1212.
Mr. Shams-ur-Rehman Rind, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bazai, Assistant Attorney General for State.
Date of hearing: 21.6.2023.
Order
Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J.--Applicant Mst. Nazeerah seeks bail after arrest in a case vide FIR No. 08/2023 dated 08.05.2023, registered with Railway Police Station, Quetta by complainant SI/SHO Zia-ur-Rehman under the offences punishable under Section 9(2)(6), 9(1) 6.(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (“Act of 1997”) for recovery of 1590 grams Ice and 560 grams heroin wrapped in plastic packets (sachets) made from her personal search.
An attempt for grant of bail failed on 25.05.2023 before learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Special Judge CNS, Quetta.
2. Tersely, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant SI/SHO Zia-ur-Rehman got registered the FIR ibid with the allegation that on 08.05.2023, he alongwith other Police personnel were doing snap checking at Railway Station, Quetta, where they found the applicant suspicious and as such on personal search got recovered 560 grams of heroin and 5 sachets of ice, weighing 265, 535, 270, 275, 245 grams each, total 1590 grams from the possession of the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contended that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. Added further that the investigation of the case has been completed and the applicant is no more required for further investigation, as such, the applicant being woman is entitled to be released on bail.
Conversely, learned Assistant Attorney General strongly opposed the bail of the applicant and contended that the applicant has been specifically nominated in the FIR and there is no mala fide on the part of the prosecution. He further contended that the applicant has been arrested red handedly with heroine and ice which disentitles her for the concession of bail.
4 Heard. Record scanned. Admittedly, the applicant was arrested red-handedly and recovery of illegal contraband was effected from her possession, which prima facie suggest that there appears reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 9(6)(c) of the Act of 1997, which provides punishment of imprisonment extending to 14 years but not less than 10 years with fine up to five hundred thousand rupees but not less than one hundred and twenty five thousand rupees, whereas Ice (methamphetamine) being a psychotropic substance mentioned at serial number 47 of the Schedule-I entails punishment u/S. 9(4) of the Act of 1997 for three years but not less than one year alongwith fine up to one hundred and fifty thousand rupees. The offence punishable u/S. 9(6)(c) of the Act ibid squares within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 51 of the Act of 1997, which does not allow the applicant to be enlarged on bail.
5. We are conscious of the proviso of clause (1) of the Section 497 Cr.P.C., which extends concession of bail to a woman accused, indulged in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, but we are also mindful of the fact that nowadays women folk are involved as carriers for transportation of narcotics, as such, the felony alleged being an organized crime cannot be equated with ordinary crimes. Record also reflects that the applicant is resident of Shikarpur and there is an apprehension that she will abscond and would not turn up to face the trial, as such, we believe that the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail. Our view is fortified with the dicta expounded in the case of “Tahira Batool v. State” (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 764). The Relevant Para No. 6 is reproduced herein under:
“6. The exceptions for refusing bail in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1)., Cr.P.C. are therefore also applicable to the accused who pray for bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause. These exceptions are well settled by several judgements of this Court. They are likelihood of the accused: (a) to abscond to escape trial; (b) to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) to repeat the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record, nature of the offence or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence.”
6. So far as the plea of false implication is concerned, the same cannot be attended to at this bail stage as deeper appreciation is impermissible while parting with the bail application. In this regard we would like to refer to the case of ‘Noor Khan v. State (2021 SCMR 1212)
7. Resultantly, the instant application being bereft of the merits fails, thus dismissed.
The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, which shall not effect the merits of the case.
(A.A.K.) Bail dismissed
0 Comments