' A case under sections 156(1)(89) and 178, Customs Act read with section 9(b) and (c) of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Rawat District Rawalpindi on the ground that Abdul Rashid alongwith his wife Mst. Kaneez Fatima and Naheed Kausar his sister-in-law was carrying 2 Thans of foreign cloth while travelling together in a bus. The personal search of Mst. Kaneez Fatima showed that she was carrying 250 grams of heroin in two packets hidden in her brassier whereas her sister Mst. Naheed Kausar was also carrying 250 grams heroin concealed in her brassier and 2 kilograms of heroin in a shopping bag carried by her.
2. The petitioners applied for post-arrest bail, which was refused vide impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No,3 namely Abdul Rashid was only carrying 2 Thans of foreign cloth and as such he had a case for bail because he was not carrying any narcotic drug; that the personal search of the lady petitioners was not conducted in accordance with law as the same was to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Sub- Inspector; that none of the petitioner is a previous convict; that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 being women are entitled to bail as their case would fall within the proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. And that no person from the public was associated as recovery witness which infringed the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C.
4. In the light of above submissions, it was prayed that all the three petitioners are entitled to bail.
5. The learned counsel for the State contended that investigation is complete and the case has been sent to the Court for trial after all the three petitioners were found guilty; that personal search of the lady accused was conducted through a lady constable at the order of a competent officer, who was not below the rank of Sub-Inspector; that although two of the petitioners were women, but they were operating as a gang alongwith male accused namely Abdul Rashid, therefore, they did not deserve to be enlarged on bail particularly when the recovered heroin weighed 2.05 kilograms; that there was no violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. As the occurrence took place in very early hours of morning i.e. At 4-00 a.m. In a public transport and as such availability of an independent and respectable person from the locality could not be possible and that the police employees were not only natural, but reliable witnesses in this case.
6. We have considered the foregoing submissions and find that although narcotic drug was not recovered from Abdul Rashid petitioner No,3 and only two Thans of foreign cloth were recovered from him, but he being head of the group including his wife and sister-in-law, who was carrying 2.05 kilograms of heroin as detailed above, therefore, none of them would deserve to be released on bail as the offence was punishable with death, or imprisonment for life or for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years and also to a fine upto one million rupees in view of the provisions contained in section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The mere fact that narcotic drug was recovered from women would not create any extenuating circumstance for any of the petitioners in the light of offence under, which they are arraigned.
7. The bail petition being meritless is dismissed.