SARDAR AHMED HALEEMI, J. This case arises out of order dated 30.04.2022 (hereinafter the "impugned Order") passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung (hereinafter "the trial Court") in Criminal Bail Application No.43 of 2022, wherein the learned trial court has not inclined to grant bail to the accused/applicant in FIR No. 19/2021 dated 04.10.2021 at Levies Station Daringarh District Mastung registered under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter "the Act").
2. Facts as alleged in the FIR portray that on 04.10.2021 the complainant namely Zaheer Ahmed Naib Risaldar along with levies officials were on area patrolling, in the meantime a secret information was received that in a black color land cruiser vehicle bearing registration No. BF-1808 on its way carried contrabands from Noshki. On receiving information, the levies erected a Naka/barriers at Barag top and started searching for the vehicles. At about 6:00 a.m, the said vehicle reached at the said area which was stopped by the levies personnel. On query, the persons sitting on driving seat disclosed his name as Muhammad Sadiq son of Fateh Muhammad by caste Rakhshani resident of Kharan, whereas the second person sitting on rear seat stated that his name was Ghulam son of Sufi Muhammad by caste Notezai resident of Dalbandin. Both the accused persons were deported from the vehicle and the vehicle was searched. The secret informer pointed out the secret cavities, where the narcotics were concealed. The bags of narcotics (ice/sheesha) were recovered, upon- weighing the bag No.1 contained 9 kg and 580 grams, bag No.2 contained 9 kg and 620 grams whereas bag No. 3 contained 9 kg and 730 grams which were taken into possession and samples separated for chemical analysis. The bag and samples were sealed on the spot. The accused persons were arrested and the said vehicle and contrabands were taken into possession. On above mentioned written Murasila of the complainant the instant case was registered at Levies Station Daringarh District Mastung. Hence, the crime report.
3. After registration of FIR, the accused persons were investigated and after completion thereof, they were remanded to judicial custody.
4. After submission, of final investigation report, the challan was submitted before the trial court and the trial is pending.
5. The trial court after receiving challan provided all the required documents to the applicant/accused as per law and thereafter the trial court framed the charge against the accused persons and both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as two witnesses i.e. PW-1 Khalid Ahmed, levies official the witness of seizure memo and recovery of contrabands, PW-2 Zaheer Ahmed Naib Risaldar levies (complainant).
7. In the meantime, the applicant/ accused filed Bail Application No.43 of 2022 for the grant of post arrest bail before the trial court which was declined vide order dated 30.04.2022.
8. The accused/applicant approached this Court by means of filing Criminal Bail Application No.82 of 2022 seeking post arrest bail.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned APG at length and have gone through the available record with their able assistance.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued that the accused/ applicant was innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention. No iota of evidence is available on record to connect the accused/ applicant with the alleged commission of offences.
He further contended that the statement of two prosecution's witnesses were contradicting the version of prosecution and it was asserted that Section 103 Cr.P.C was violated as no private person was associated at the time of arrest of the accused/applicant and recovery of narcotics substances.
Learned counsel for the accused/ applicant in support of his contention placed reliance upon the case of Ehsan Ullah Khan v. The State (2020 YLR page 50 Peshawar), Ahsan Bangash v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 511), Muhammad Saleh Mallah v. The State (2016 PCr.LJ 432), Hakim Ali v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1865) and Ghulam Muhammad v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 805) and lastly contended that the accused/ applicant is a medical student who passed his professional examination in the year 2009 from BMC.
11. Learned A.P.G. appearing on behalf of State strongly controverted the contention of learned counsel for the accused/applicant on the ground that huge quantity of narcotics i.e. 28 kg and 921 grams were recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant, further the bail of co- accused namely Ghulam son of Sufi Muhammad has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2022.
12. The prosecution recorded the statement of PW-3 Zaheer Ahmed, Niab Risaldar Levies (complainant), who stated that the case was at the conclusion stage and lastly submitted that deeper appreciation of facts and evidence would affect the merit of the case.
13. The material available on record it prima facie appears that the accused/ applicant was apprehended with the vehicle and from their possession huge quantity of narcotics i.e. 28 kg and 921 grams of Ice/Sheesha were recovered and no specific allegation of enmity or false implication was levelled against the police nor anything is available on the record.
14. The learned counsel for the accused/applicant could not point out any misreading or non- reading of material facts and law in the bail rejected order.
15. Admittedly, the co-accused Ghulam also assailed the order dated 30.04.2022 rejecting his bail application before the trial court and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2022. The recovery of the vehicle from which the contrabands were recovered was also not disputed nor any other person had come forwarded to claim to the ownership. The case law cited by the learned counsel for applicant is not attracting, in the circumstances of present case, as huge quantity of narcotics substances were recovered and is non-bailable offence, which not only fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, and also attract the bar contained in section 51(1) of CNS Act, 1997, which provides that bail shall not be granted to an accused person charged in the death or life imprisonment. In this respect reliance is being placed on the case titled as Imtiaz Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545). The relevant para is reproduced as under:-- "The Courts should 'not be oblivious of the fact that at present country is confronted with many serious problems/difficulties of national and international magnitude, which cannot be resolved unless the whole nation as a united entity makes efforts. The desire to amass wealth by illegal means has penetrated in all walks of life. The people commit offences detrimental to the society and the country for money. Some of the holders of the public office commit or facilitate commission of offences for monetary consideration. In the above scenario the Courts' approach should be reformation-oriented with the desire to suppress the above mischiefs. To achieve the above objective, it is imperative that the Courts should apply strictly the laws which are designed and intended to eradicate the above national evils but at the same time, they are duty bound to ensure that the above approach should not result in miscarriage of justice. It should not be overlooked that Article 9 of our Constitution, which relates to a fundamental rights, guarantees life and liberty of every person. Life, inter alia, includes the right to have access to a fair and independent judicial forum for redress. A balance is to be struck between national, and individual interest/right".
16. Apart from the above, there is also a settled preposition laid down by the Apex court that bail could not be encouraged when the proceedings before the trial court are at final stage as the same may prejudice either party.
In view of above, we are not inclined to allow this bail application, which is hereby rejected.
However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and same shall not influence the merit of the case at the trial.