JUDGMENTMunawar Ahmed Mirza, J.-Petitioner is apprehended in connection with case registered by Levies authorities on the complaint dated 23.10.1988 ledged by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Turbat under sections 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) order, 1979. According to Prosecution petitioner was caught' red handed' through a fake customer while selling huge quantile of 'Heroin'.
Initially petitioner was released by learned Sessions Judge Turbat vide order dated 26.11.1988, but subsequently petition seeking cancellation ot hail moved by Sub Divisional Magistrate was accepted by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.12.1988 which has now been assailed.
2. Mr.Iftikhar Muhammad, learned counsel for petitioner emphatically contended that petitioner did not violate concession of to her on 26.11.1988, therefore, subsequent cancellation was unwarrenlcd.
He canvassed that while granting bail Trial Court had duly considered relevant facts available on record, since there was no change in the circumstances, therefore, cancellation was unlawful. He argued that in the absence of Chemical Examiner's report, recovered substance cannot be definitely deemed herein. Learned counsel further canvassed that provisions of section 497/498 Cr.P.C, otherwise provide concession to a woman but trial court ignored all these aspects while passing order dated 19.12.1988. Besides on the plea of first offender reliance was placed on the observation in case Babar Islam Vs. The State (1985 P.Cr.L.J. 2779)
3. Whereas learned A.A.G, vehemently opposing bail application maintained that content of F.I.R, and evidence secured during investigation amply establishes participation of petitioner in actual sale of narcotics. He vehemently contended that offence alleged against petitioner is punishable for life imprisonment,thus disentitling her from any concession.
4. I have carefully examined both the orders passed by trial court, and also considered arguments addressed by learned counsel for parties. Evidently, tenative evaluation of material collected during investigation reasonably connects petitioner with commission of offence alleged against her: Circumstances, prima facie show' involvemcnt/of petitioner in trafficing narcotics. Factully trial] court while passing order dated 26.11.1988 disregarded requirements of law concerning grant of bail in offence punishable with imprisonment of life, besides relevant available facts were also clearly ignored, therefore in my opinion trial court justifiably recalled its earlier order. No doubt, law provides more concession regarding bail to female accused.Nevcrthclcss discretion in this behalf, must be judiciously exercised looking into respective merits, It is pertinent to note, that narcotic trafficing is becoming great menace to society, by seriously affecting morals of youth. Introduction of ladies for carrying this nefarious business is further detrimental to social febric. Thus females involved in such degenerated offences would not be automatically entitled to discretion merely by virtue of sex unless law so permits on merits. In the instant case, petitioner is prima facie implicated for the commission of alleged offence.Factum of being first offender by itself is not sufficient for allowing bail under section 497/498 Cr.P.C. Therefore with utmost respect I would differ with the observation in case Babar Islam vs. The State (1985 P.Cr. L.J. 2779)relied upon by petitioner.
Apparently from the facts on record, conclusion drawn by trial court in its order dated 19.12.1988 arc unexceptionable. The offence is obviously punishable w the imprisonment of life.
Thus for the foregoing reasons, present petition has no merits. In this view I am also supported by observation in following reported judgements:- Nasira Ahmed Vs. The State ( 1986 P.Cr. L.J. 203) George alias Kaka Vs. State (1986 P.Cr.L.J.1086)
Syed Sulcman Shah Vs. State (1986.P.Cr.L.J.1809) Muhammad Anis vs. State (P.Cr.L.J. 1987 P-1386)
Bachan Saop Vs. State (1987 P.Cr. L.J. 1456) Muhammad Hanif Vs. State ( 1987 P.Cr.L.J.59)
Haji Muhammad Nakki Vs. The State (1988 SCM R 162) Yaseen vs, The Stale (PLD 1988 Karachi 69)
6. Investigating Agency is however directed to conaplcte investigation Within one week and put up challan before Court of competent jurisdiction. It is further observed that petitioner however would be at liberty to move fresh bail application if during trial, case is made out on merits.