Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, J.--Brief facts giving rise to the present bail application are that on 31-3- 2005 complainant Inspector Sardar Abdul Waheed of Police Station ANF, Clifton, Karachi received spy information that a person by the name of Ahudhu Manliki would smuggle a huge quantity of narcotics by air. Therefore, on that date at about 7-40 a.m. the required points at the airport were put under surveillance. A.S.-I. Nazir Alam was deputed to see the luggage putting in.the aircraft of Flight No. PK274. In the meanwhile a black African namely Ahudhu Manliki, the present applicant came in the 'departure lounge after customs checking and proceeded to ANF checking counter. He was holding two handbags of black colour. The same were checked in which children clothes, a file, some papers and a card, in the name of Ahudhu Manliki were found. His passport was checked and particulars were found as per informer's report regarding Ahudhu to whom the P.I.A. staff was to deliver the narcotics. The applicant got the boarding card from the P.I.A. counter, cleared himself from FIA mmigration counter and entered into business lounge satellite area. He was kept under constant watch. The applicant proceeded towards the plane. He vas stopped and his boarding card was checked. His passport which was for P.I.A. Flight from Karachi to Mumbai and then for flight of Ethiopian Airline from Mumbai to Addis Ababa and to Lagos. The applicant did not 3ook any luggage at the counter and on inquiry he confirmed the same. In the meanwhile the complainant received wireless message from A.S. I. gazeer Alam that he saw Manzoor, an employee of P.I.A., brought a vehicle rom which Rehmat and Saleem took out a bag of black colour and put it in he luggage, which was being put in the aircraft. On receipt of such information the complainant apprehended passenger/applicant Ahudha Manliki. Thereafter he asked the PIA' shift Station Manager Muhammad Younus to stop the aircraft and then the entire luggage was got unloaded from it. In the luggage they found black colour suitcase with a boarding tag in the name of Ahudhu, which was taken to the lounge and opened in presence of P.I.A. and A.N.F. staff. From the bag 12.6 kg. of heroin was recovered. The sample was drawn from it and then the property was sealed. The passenger/applicant Ahudhu Manliki alongwith the property was brought to the Police Station where the complainant lodged the report.
2. The applicant moved bail application before the trial Court but the same was dismissed; hence the present application.
The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the co-accused Saleem Khan who had allegedly mixed a black bag with the luggage has been granted bail by this Court; that the prosecution has failed to connect the bag with the applicant; that the applicant did not book any bag nor any counterfoil of tag was recovered from his possession; that the entries in the tags were filled with handwriting; that no keys of the bag were secured from the possession of the applicant; and that the prosecution has failed to collect any tangible evidence against the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Spl. Prosecutor ANP has stated that the tag contained the name of the applicant; that the P.Ws. have no enmity with the applicant to falsely implicate him in the case; and that the applicant would have received the bag at its destination, therefore, the applicant has been connected with the bag.
5. We have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that this is a case of drug trafficking and smuggling from Karachi to Lagos. It is not out of place to mention here that the drug traffickers and smugglers adopt novel methods to transport, traffic and smuggle illegal articles from one country to another. `Therefore, criteria and yardstick for examining the cases of normal possession or transportation of narcotic drugs should be different from the cases of trafficking and smuggling of narcotic drugs as in latter class of cases it is difficult for the prosecution to procure the evidence of the quality which is normally procured in former class of cases, and further examine the facts, surrounding circumstances and evidence collected so far with a view to ascertain the innovative method adopted by the traffickers or smugglers to take away the material.
6. Keeping in view the above aspect of the case we have examined the case and found that the prosecution has tried to connect the applicant with the tag, which was found available in the bag that contained 12.6 kg. of heroin. In order to examine the said bag, tag and the bag which the applicant was carrying as hand luggage, we had called the said bags. After examining the said bags we found that the bag, which the applicant was carrying in his hand, was of similar size as that of the bag from which the heroin was secured. The colours of both the bags are black. A possibility cannot be ruled out that when the bag containing heroin powder had reached its destination the same could have been collected by the applicant as his name was available on the tag and by just replacing the tag, which was available in the bag that the applicant was carrying with the tag, which was available in the bag containing heroin powder, the bag in question could have been taken out from the airport of its destination. The bag which the applicant was carrying in his hand contained clothes which could have been abandoned by the applicant at its destination and could have been collected by the airport staff as an unclairried property. It appears that by adopting the above method the applicant could have very easily taken out the bag from the airport.
7. Furthermore, the applicant is a foreign national, the possibility of absconding could not be ruled out and once he leaves the country through any illegal method his attendance could not be procured to face the trail even if his and his surety's bail bonds are cancelled and surety amount is recovered from the surety. .
8. After considering the material available on the record we are of the considered view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is involved in the case, therefore, his case falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as such, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. However, in the circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to give preference to this case so that the same be completed within shortest possible time. The observation made in the order are tentative in, nature, which shall not come in the way of trial Court while deciding the case. The application is dismissed.