AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. The applicants Mst. Nazia wife of Abdul Rahim and Mst. Sumaiya wife of Ilyas booked in Crime No. 21/2022 under section 6/9-C of CNS Act, 1997 read with sections 14/15 CNS Act 1997 registered at Police Station ANF, Karachi on refusal of bail moved before the learned Special Court-II(CNS) Karachi vide order date 16.07.2022 have approached this court for seeking post arrest bail.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 02.06.2022 a police party apprehended the applicants and other accused and from search recovered 4Kgs Charas, 2.5.Kg ICE and 500 grams heroin powder hence the above FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motives. He further contended that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicants. He further submitted that on 28.05.2022 the police party had picked upon the present applicants from their houses and confined at unknown place and thereafter the applicants have' been booked in this crime. He further submitted that the alleged recovery has been foisted upon the applicants by the ANF Officials on refusal of illegal demands: the entire story of prosecution is doubtful and matter requires further inquiry. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that applicants are ladies and they may be admitted to bail as they are not previously convicted, hardened and disparate criminal.
4. Learned Special Prosecutor ANF submitted that applicants were apprehended red handed and on their search 4Kgs Charas, 2.5 Kg Ice and 50 grams heroin powder has been recovered, hence she opposes the bail to the applicants as they are in a crime which is against the society and are liable for punishment provided under the law.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the applicants are behind the bars since their arrest the case is pending trial before the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicants during the course of his arguments submitted that police party had picked up both the applicants and after keeping them at unknown place booked them in this case and further that there is no recovery from the possession of present applicants and the recovery of 4Kgs Charas, 2.5.Kg ICE and 500 grams heroin powder has been foisted upon them. Such arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, which were not rebutted by the learned SpI. Prosecutor ANF, create doubt, benefit of which shall go to the applicants. In the case reported as Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241)
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such, a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail then in the jail, during the trial.
Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary to deprive him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt of the accused".
6. It is not out of context to mention here that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The concept of bail has elaborately been dilated upon by the Indian Supreme Court in the case titled as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (AIR 2012 SC 830), which reads in the following words:- "In ball applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted person should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such case, necessity is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of a bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
7. It is settled that bail in case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. is to be granted as a rule and refusal is an exception as held in the cases of Ghulam Abbas v. State (2006 P.Cr.LJ 413), Tahir Mehmood v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 112) and so also in the landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
8. Besides above as per FIR the narcotics were recovered from the possession of co-accused and not from the present applicants and the point of selling or purchasing the narcotics would be decided after the evidence is recorded. No exceptional circumstances appear in this case to withhold bail of the applicants at this stage. I am of the view that to curtail the liberty of a person is a serious step in law. Whatever mentioned above, I reached at conclusion that the applicants have succeeded to make out the case for grant of bail. Consequently, the applicants are admitted, to bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.