AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--Applicant Sheeraz son of Ejaz seeks bail after arrest in case Crime No,177/2016 registered at Police Station Madina Colony, Karachi under sections 6/9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. Record shows that earlier bail application filed by the applicant before the Special Court-II (CNS)
Karachi was rejected by order dated 25.05.2017.
3. Pithy facts unveiled from the FIR are that 135 Kgs Charas was recovered from the high Roof Suzuki which was driven by the applicant and other co-accused were sitting in it.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. He further argued that applicant has filed this bail application on ground of delay, hardship and liberty of the person. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that applicant is behind the bars since his arrest and may be admitted to bail as the applicant is not previously convicted, hardened and desperate criminal.
5. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh opposed the concession of bail to the applicant on the ground that the applicant is engaged in business of narcotics and ,huge quantity of charas was carrying with intention to sell it out. Learned Prosecutor has emphatically submitted that it is settled that at the bail stage the appreciation of facts in depth cannot be considered and the Court at the bail stage has to look into the material available on the record, to determine the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence.
6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh are considered and record has also been perused.
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that applicant was arrested red handed while he was driving the Suzuki High Roof. The larger interest of the public and State demands that in case of huge recovery of narcotics, the discretion under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be exercised liberally. The Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 consolidates and amends the law relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It controls and prohibits the prosecution, processing and trafficking of these substances. It also lays progressive punishments for narcotic offences. It provides for the constitution of Special Courts having exclusive jurisdiction to try narcotic offences. Section 51 of the Act provides that bail shall not be granted to an accused person charged with an offence under this Act or under any other law relating to narcotics where the offence is punishable with death. When the quantity of narcotics exceeds one kilogram, the case falls in Clause (c) of section 9 of the Act, for which death penalty or imprisonment for life has been provided. Similarly, the discretion under section 497, Cr.P.C. can also not be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the Court at the very outset is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless.
8. The Apex Court in a case reported as Socha Gul v. The State (2015 SCM R 1077) while considering the offences punishable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to be heinous in nature and against the society at large, repelled the views of this Court as under:- "It is pertinent to mention here that offences punishable under CNS Act of 1997 are by its nature heinous and considered to be the offences against the society at large and it is for this reason that the statute itself has provided a note of caution under section 51 of CNS Act of 1997 before enlarging an accused on bail in the ordinary course. When we refer to the standards set out under section 497, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to an accused involved in an offence under section 9(c) of 4 CNS Act of 1997, even on that basis we find that an accused charged with an offence, prescribing various punishments, as reproduced above, is not entitled for grant of bail merely on account of the nature or quantity of narcotic substance, being four kilograms. Firstly, as deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and secondly, in such situation, looking to the peculiar features and nature of the offence, the trial Court may depart from the normal standards prescribed in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) and award him any other legal punishment. Thus, in our opinion, ratio of judgment in the case of Ghulam Murtaza (supra) is not relevant at bail stage."
9. Besides, it is well settled principle that a person who is on driving seat of the vehicle, shall be held responsible for transportation of the narcotics having knowledge of the same as no condition or qualification has been made in section 9(c) of CNSA that the possession should be an exclusive one and can be joint one with two or more persons. The wisdom is derived from the case titled, "Kashif Amir v. The State" (PLD 2010 SC 1052). Therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefit of the plea of principle of consistency.
10. Deeper appreciation of the record at bail stage cannot be gone into but only it is to be seen as to whether the accused is prima facie connected with the commission of the offence or not.
11. For what has been discussed above this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of applicant for grant of bail and the bail application is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it at an earliest, preferably within a period of three months, after receipt of this order and in failure of the trial Court to conclude the trial within specified period, the applicant may repeat the bail application before the trial court, if so advised.
12. Before parting, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above, being necessary for deciding the instant bail application, are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever.