1. ' The applicants and 7 others are accused in a case under clause 8 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act pending in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Excise), Karachi.
2. ' The prosecution case is that on 11-11-1976 at about 1-45 a.m. a truck and a wagon approached the sea coast at village Rehri, Karachi, and some persons started unloading bags from them. A party of Coast Guards which was patrolling the area came to know of it and rushed to the said point and challenged the persons who tried to run away and one launch which was anchored at the sea coast was also seen speeding away from the coast. Pakistan Coast Guard however succeeded in recovering of 25 maunds of charas from the truck which was driven by co-accused Junab Gul who was caught at the spot. The Coast Guard also recovered 5 maunds of charas from the wagon standing at the spot. The recovered charas was seized under mashirnama and accused Junab Gul was arrested. Thereafter applicant Junab Gut lead the party of Coast Guard to house No, 2/22, Model Colony, Malir which was searched at 3-30 a.m. And 7 maunds 20 seers of more charas was recovered from there. The said house was in occupation of co-accused Fazal Hussain who was also arrested. Application for bail was moved on behalf of the applicant Junab Gul which was rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order dated 27-11-1976. Hence this application.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant raised the following contentions :-
(1) That the goods were not loaded in a conveyance or a vessel for transport to any destination outside Pakistan and therefore the case did not fall under section 156 of the Customs Act in view of the explanation appended to the aforesaid section ;
(2) That the narcotics did not include charas and for this relied upon New Imperial Reference Dictionary at page 711 ;
(3) That the petitioner was only a driver and therefore being merely a carrier was entitled to be released on bail and in support relied upon 1976 SCM R 190 and 145 ;
(4) That the six accused are absconding and there was no likelihood of the trial taking place in near future.
4. ' Mr. Suleman Memon, learned Additional Advocate-General, vehemently opposed the bail on the grounds that 25 maunds of charas worth Rs, 7 crores was secured from the truck driven by applicant and that co-accused Fazal Hussain in his 164 statement had implicated Junab Gul by stating that the latter had come to the house from where more quantity of charas was secured on search on the previous day and dropped certain goods and had again come on the next day to load the goods into his wagon, which went to show that the applicant was not merely a carrier but was actively involved in smuggling and it being an offence under item (8) of section 156 of the Customs Act punishable with 10 years' R. I. Disentitled the applicant to be released on bad. Learned Additional Advocate-General also argued that narcotics is defined in the Webster Dictionary include Indian hemp and Abkari Act also defines charas as product of Indian hemp and therefore the charas fell within the meaning of narcotics included in item 8 of clause 156 of the Customs Act.
5. He lastly contended that the definition of smuggling contained in clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act included an attempt to smuggle in view of section 2 (s) (b) of the Act.
6. I would refrain from examining the rival contentions in detail at this stage. Suffice it to say, that 25 maunds of charas valued at Rs, 7 crores was recovered at 1-45 a.m. From a truck driven by the applicant Junab Gul near the sea coast of village Rehri Karachi and a launch was also found to have been speeding away after the arrival of the coast guard party. The applicant was arrested at the spot and he led the custom party to the house from where A some more charas was secured.
7. Further, he is also implicated by co-accused' Fazal Hussain in his 164 statement as having been regular visitor of the said house for loading and unloading the goods lying in the said house which good on search, were found to be chants. In these circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that the applicant was merely a carrier. I, therefore, do not find it a fit case for bail and accordingly reject this application.