Petitioner, Mst. Shakila, seeks bail in a case registered against her with Police Station Bhangi Khel, District Mianwali, for an offence under section 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement. Of Hadd) Order, 1979.
The case was got registered by Muhammad Ashraf, Head Constable, on 11-4-1991, with the allegation that, on the said date he alongwith other police officials was preset, at Bhangi Check Post when a Flying Coach came and stopped at the said Check Post. On seeing the police the petitioner tried to hide a plastic bag. While getting down from the Flying Coach they found that she was carrying a plastic bag. On checking it transpired that it contained heroin which weighed one kilogrm. Out of one kilogram, 10 grams heroin were sent for chemical analysis.
It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case --against the petitioner is absolutely false. Submitted that the petitioner alongwith her aunt Mst. Samina, an accused in another case were going to Sargodha to see some relation. Argued that nothing was recovered from the petitioner but the police because of ulterior motive had falsely involved the petitioner.
Argued that the petitioner is .a woman under 16 years of age, and in such circumstances she is entitled to the concession, of bail even if her case fell within prohibitory clause.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the F.I.R. As well as the police file. According to the .Police file the petitioner at the time of her arrest gave her name as Mst. Shakila, daughter of Rahim Gut, Caste Memon, .Resident of Peshawar. For, verification papers were sent to Police Station Faqirabad, Peshawar. According to the report no person by the name of Mst. Shakila daughter of Rahim Gul lives in the vicinity which indicates that the petitioner has given her incorrect address.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that the police has falsely involved the petitioner in the instant case because no enmity has been agitated by the petitioner.
The contention that petitioner that the had been involved in the instant case because the first informant Muhammad Ashraf, Head Constable, wanted to take her for the night, on the face of it is not believable. The Head Constable could rot dare to behave in such a manner in the presence of so many persons. Lady as checked at a checking pest wherein the first informant alone was not there. The last contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is less than 16 years of age is incorrect because able the police in its file has recorded the age of the petitioner as 20/21 years. Petitioner hits not produced any document which could prove her age to be less than 16 years. Though the petitioner is a woman yet she cannot be entitled to the concession of bail because she is resident of Frontier and has given her incorrect address and, in such circumstances, the chances of her absconding cannot tic ruled out.
3. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
N.H.Q./S-133/L