1. This is seventh bail Application in the series. Six times in the past bail applications have been dismissed. On three occasions bail applications have been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and thrice by the High Court. This is fourth attempt in the High court, This is glaring example of unrelenting persistence.
2. Applicant Naseem Ahmed is accused of offence under section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 17-8-1984 at 1-30 a.m. a car was stopped by Group Leader of Task Force and his party at the back of Midway Hotel at Karachi Airport acting on spy information. Co-accused Muqaddas, who was driving the car succeeded in running away. Applicant Naseem Ahmed who was in the car was caught red handed. During the search 45 Kilograms of heroin were recovered lying in small bags of one kilogram each. Applicant was taken in custody. First bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi, who has dismissed the same vide order, dated 30-8-1984. Plea was taken that applicant was not driving the car but co-accused Muqaddas was driving the car who had absconded as such applicant could not said to be in conscious possession of heroin. It was also submitted that applicant at the relevant time was working as Traffic Assistant in K.L.M. And did not attempt to run away from the car when stopped as such it was a case of further enquiry. On the other hand A.P.P. Relied upon the statement of Muhammad Rafique, who stated that 2/3 days prior to his arrest, Naseem had invited him to join him in the smuggling of narcotics. While dismissing the bail application it was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that there was sufficient evidence to show that a huge quantity of heroin was recovered from the car in which applicant Naseem Ahmed was travelling with co- accused Muqaddas. It was immaterial that the car did not belong to the applicant, F.I.R. Shows that applicant Naseem Ahmed was caught while he was still inside the oar and had no opportunity to run away, Second bail application was filed in the High Court bearing Bail Application No, 873 of 1984 which was dismissed by a very detailed order on merits passed on 19-9-1984 with an observation at the foot of the order to the effect that application was premature as investigation was not completed and it was open to the applicant to repeat bail application on fresh grounds, if so advised, when the investigation was completed.
3. Third bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same vide order, dated 3-10-1984. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge in the said order that points argued by the learned counsel were already considered during the hearing of previous bail application and no fresh ground was urged except that investigation was over and the challan was submitted against the applicant. In the circumstances bail application was dismissed on the ground that situation had not changed and no fresh ground was urged and offence under section 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 was punishable with imprisonment for life.
4. Fourth bail application was filed in the High Court bearing Bail Application No. 1008 of 1984, which was placed for hearing before the same learned Judge, who had earlier dismissed bail application on merits but since he declined to hear that application again, it came before another Judge, who dismissed the same vide order, dated 14-10-1984 on the ground that learned counsel for applicant did not press the bail application and withdrew the same. Memorandum of bail application in that file shows that bail was urged on merits and ultimately bail application was not pressed and withdrawn perhaps for the reason that the learned counsel for applicant could not satisfy the Court that any fresh ground existed for interference after dismissal of bail application on merits by the High Court previously.
5. Fifth bail application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and this time it was on the ground of sickness. This bail application was dismissed vide order, dated 27-10-1984. On the ground of illness bail plea was urged on the basis of certificate issued by the Jail Doctor, which showed that applicant was being treated for cough, fever, chest pain, breathlessness and frequent bouts of blood stained spectrums and it was a case of pulmonary infection. Learned Sessions Judge observed that nothing was mentioned in the previous applications about the illness as such it was a managed affair. It was further observed that Jail Doctor has not stated in his Certificate that further detention of applicant in Jail would be detrimental to his life.
6. Sixth bail application was moved in the High Court bearing Bail Application No. 1166 of 1984, which was dismissed vide order, dated 30-1-1985. Perusal of the order shows that Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate for applicant did not press the bail application at that stage hence the application was dismissed as withdrawn. I have seen the record of Bail Application No. 1166 of 1984.
7. Order, dated 2-12-1984 shows that this application for bail was urged on the ground of sickness and two medical certificates from Jail Doctor were also produced but the learned Judge of the High Court observed that in those two certificates again the Jail Doctor did not mention that remaining in Jail of applicant would be detrimental to his life. Vide that order the learned Judge of the High Court directed the Director Health, Government of Sind to constitute a medical board of Doctors to examine applicant and copy of the order was sent to the Director Health and also to the Superintendent Jail to produce applicant for examination before the Board. Hearing was adjourned on one or two occasions and subsequently on 30-1-1986, Mr, Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate did not press the bail application and in the result bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. It appears from the perusal of the order of that date that even at that time medical report was not received from the Board, Report of the Medical Board is on the file, which appears to have been received in the office of High Court subsequently and finding in the report given by three Doctors including professor of Surgery, professor of Medicine and Medical Superintendent, is that the detention of applicant in Jail is not detrimental to his life.
8. Ordinarily report of Medical Board should have brought an end to the matter but instead of that seventh bail application ham been moved end this time in the High Court by Mr. S. Abbas 21a, Advocate on behalf of applicant Naseem Ahmed. This time bail plea is urged on merits as well as on medical ground. So far medical ground is concerned. I rely upon the finding of the Medical Board that the dentention of the applicant in jail with illness complained of is not detrimental to his life. Proper treatment can be given to him in Jail or in, the Hospital as the case may be. This is to be determined by the Jail authorities am they consider fit and proper. So far the merits are concerned, no fresh ground is urged and the same arguments were repeated which have been considered in the order of dismissal of bail application passed on 19-9-1984. One ground urged before me is that so much time has passed without any progress in the trial proceedings. Bail plea can be urged on the ground of statutory delay after expiry of time stipulated in section 497, Cr.P.C. For that purpose.
9. No interference is called for and the bail application is dismissed once again.
10. S.G.D.Bail not allowed.