' The above titled revision petition has been directed against the order of District Criminal Court Muzaffarabad dated 2.10,2013, whereby the bail application of the accused-petitioner was declined by the said court. Ii The brief facts forming the background of the instant revision petition are that a case under Sections 3/4, 14, 26,AM and 279,APC was registered against the accused-petitioner at police station Civil Secretariat Muzaffarabad on 12.09.2013. The averments of the FIR need not to be reiterated because the same have sufficiently been incorporated by the Court below in the impugned order. After, registration of the case, the accused-petitioner moved an application for bail after arrest before Additional Tehsil Criminal Court Muzaffarabad on 19.09.2013. The said Court after hearing the parties disallowed the same vide its order dated 23.09.2013. The accused- petitioner moved his second bail application before District Criminal Court Muzaffarabad on 28.09.2013, which also met with the same fate vide order dated 2.10.2013; hence this revision petition.
3. Raja Ayaz Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner argued that the Courts below committed grave illegality while recording the impugned orders. The learned counsel further contended that the accused-petitioner has wrongly been implicated in this case. He further argued that the accused-petitioner was wrongly challaned by the police, he has no concerned with the alleged recoveries. According to the learned counsel the occurrence took place at daylight, but no member from the locality has been cited in the process of recovery, which is requirement of law under Section 103,Cr.P.0 rather no explanation has been given for not associating any member. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the definition of offence under Section 3/4,AM is quite different and both cannot be made against accused-petitioner at the same time. According to him, the offence under Section 279,APC also dues not attract in this case. The learned counsel zealously argued that the accused-petitioner was hired by the other accused-persons for taking them from Abbottabad to Muzaffarabad and he was unaware about the intoxicant packed in the 'alleged car. The learned counsel submitted that the other co-accused namely Syed Imtiaz Husain has been released on bail, as such the present accused-petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment on the basis of rule of consistency. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that by accepting the revision petition the impugned orders may be set aside and the accused-petitioner may also be released on bail. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel cited the following case law:
1. P.L.D 1987 S.0 288;
2. . 1988 P.Cr.L.J 2069;
3. 2002 P.Cr.L.J 1162;
4. 2008 P.Cr.L.J 1162.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail prayer of the accused-petitioner and also submitted that both the Courts below have rightly declined the bail application of the accused-petitioner in right direction which warrants no interference by this Court. The learned State counsel further contended that the accused-petitioner fully connected with the crime, as such he is not entitled for any concession like bail. The learned State counsel defended the impugned orders on all counts.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care.
6. A thorough perusal of the record reveals that the accused-petitioner along with other two accused was coming from Abbottabad to Muzaffarabad through a link road. On reaching the check-post situated at Rara Muzaffarabad, the police stopped the vehicle No, IDJ3247 for normal checking, but the driver (present accused-petitioner) rushed the car towards Dulae. At Matahi cross, the vehicle was stopped by the police. On search, the police found huge quantity of intoxicant weighing 5 kilogram of Opium and 81 kilogram of Charas packed in different portion of the vehicle, which was taken into possession. The said recoveries were made in presence of the accused-petitioner, which was not denied by him, therefore the application of Section 103, Cr.P.C.
Does not required. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner emphasis on the point that the present accused-petitioner was unaware about the intoxicant packed in the alleged vehicle and he was hired by the other accused-persons on rent to drive the vehicle. In this regard, it is pertinent to note here that this huge quantity of intoxicant was packed in different parts of the vehicle, then how it is possible that he was not aware about the presence of the intoxicant, therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is devoid of force which is hereby repelled.
7. For having true perception, I would like to reproduce subsection (2) of Sections 3 & 4 AM, which are as under: "2(2) whoever,
(i) imports, exports, transports, manufactures or, traffics in opium or coca leaf atrium or coca derivatives, or
(ii) finances the import, export transport, manufacture, or trafficking of opium or coca leaf or opium or coca derivatives; ' shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which is not less than two years and whapping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine.
' Section 4 (2), Provided further that, if the intoxicant in respect of which the offence is committed is heroin, cocaine, raw opium or coca leaf and the quantity exceeds ten grams in the case of heroin or cocaine or one kilogram in the case of raw opium or coca leaf, the offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which is not less then two years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine."
'In view of above provision of law, the case of the accused-petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And in such Pi like cases, the Apex Courts have declined to allow the concession of bail to the accused.
7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner about the rule of consistency is concerned. In this regard, it is relevant to note here that the case of other accused- person namely Syed Imtiaz Hussain is quite different from the one of accused-petitioner, therefore the rule of consistency does not attract in this case. Prima facte the accused-petitioner is connected with the crime, as such he is not entitled for any concession like bail. The Courts below have rightly declined the concession of bail which warrants no interference by this Court. It will not be out place to mention here that such like criminals should not be released on bail in a routine matter, because they are killing the human generation by using this dangerous intoxicant, which is very bad state-of- affair.
8. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has no relevancy with the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore need not to be discussed.
' In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed. However, the accused-petitioner may move bail application before the trial Court after recording the statements of some P.Ws.