' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Dr. Ghulam Mustafa on 2-11-2010, lodged F.I.R No,145 of 2010, at Police Station Rehmatpur, Larkana, under section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code against the present applicant on the allegation that he is involved in dealing/using stolen drugs from Teaching Hospital, Larkana, in his clinic.
2. Registration of above F.I.R was followed by investigation and challan. The case was . Submitted before Judicial Magistrate-I, Larkana, wherein the present applicant and one Ghulam Kadir Jatt were shown arrested, while accused Mumtaz and Mehboob were shown in Column No,II, and accused Zulfiqar, Suresh and Asghar were shown as absconders.
3. In the first instance bail applications on behalf of the applicant and Ghulam Kadir Jatt were moved before Judicial Magistrate-I, Larkana. On its turn, the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Larkana, dismissed bail application of the present applicant, while the other accused namely, Ghulam Kadir Jatt was enlarged on bail in terms of the Order dated 26-11-2010.
4. Thereafter, applicant moved bail application before the Sessions Judge, Larkana. The II- Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, in terms of his Order dated 13-12-2010, also dismissed the bail application of the present applicant, when it came to the conclusion that the applicant was attributed with specific role of theft of government medicines and has been arrested on the spot and recovery has also been made from him.
5. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the subject-matter of the F.I.R, was a month old from the actual date of registration of F.I.R, for which no plausible explanation was given therein. It was also argued that the applicant is innocent and has been implicated due to enmity. It was stated that alleged recovery of stolen drugs had been foisted upon applicant by police in collusion with complainant. It was also argued that the offence under sections 380 and 411, P.P.C. Are bailable inasmuch as in former the maximum punishment is seven years, whereas in latter it is only three years, and therefore, the case of the applicant falls out of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was also argued that there was no reasonable ground available to believe that the applicant was guilty of the offence, he was charged with. Arguing on the rule of consistency it was urged that since the co-accused Ghulam Kadir Jatt is on bail in terms of Order dated 26-11-2010, of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Larkana, the present applicant is also entitled to bail.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the case of Tarique Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995. Supreme Court 34).
7. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was caught red-handed selling and/or dealing with stolen drugs, which were available in his clinic and therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. In the case of Tarique Bashir (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down the principle that in bailable offences, the grant of bail is a right and not favour, whereas in non-bailable offences the grant of bail is not a right but concession/grace. Grant of bail in offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years is a rule and refusal an exception. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in this case however enumerated cases where bail could be declined, punishable within imprisonment of less than ten years.
(a) Such were; (a) where there is likelihood of abscondance of the accused;
(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;
(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on bail and;
(d) where the accused is a previous convict.
10. Looking at the above four rules, set by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, rule mentioned at (c) above needs deliberation. Since it has come on record that the applicant was found in possession of the stolen government drugs and in use thereof in his clinic shows blatant and remorseless attitude of the applicant. A person with such an attitude is likely to, "repeat" the same offence, if released on bail.
11. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that since there was delay in lodging of F.I.R., the applicant is entitled to bail, suffice it to observe that in the F.I.R it is clearly mentioned that the complainant and others were looking for the stolen drugs and immediately upon receiving information and finding the applicant in possession and using of the stolen drugs at his clinic, instantaneously lodged the F.I.R. The explanation given is reasonable and plausible. As to the argument that the other co-accused namely, Ghulam Kadir Jatt has been enlarged on bail, it may be observed that the grounds those were prevailed on the courts below for enlarging the co- accused on bail were that his name was not available in the F.I.R and that his arrest was not made on the spot. As against this fact, the contents of the F.I.R would show that the applicant was caught red-handed in his clinic dealing with the stolen drugs, belonging to the government.
12. For the above reasons, I find no merits in the bail application, which is hereby dismissed.