1. ' The prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Recorded by Razi Khan Shahani, Excise Inspector, Divisional Intelligence, Larkana on 14-10-1998, is to the effect that on that day he alongwith his subordinate staff was on patrol and when reached near Government College Nasirabad Taluka Warah, they found that one person was coming from eastern side, having a white plastic bag in his hand. On seeing the police party and mobile, he was confused on which they apprehended him and snatched the plastic bag from him. The police on opening plastic hag found that it was containing opium. The said opium was weighed and it was about 1500 crams. Such Mashirnama of his arrest and recovery was prepared.
2. ' The property and the accused were brought at the Excise Office and the ease was registered against him. The Excise Police has submitted challan and the case is pending trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, Larkana, The applicant had moved application for his bail which was refused to him by the learned trial Court.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel appearing for applicant as well as NOW for the State, He has contended that out of 1500 grams the police had separated 500 grams of opium for sending it to Chemical Examiner. According to him the accused can only be ultimately tried and convicted for the said opium of 500 grams and not more than that. He, therefore, attempted to argue that the Me of the accused would come out of the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., and therefore, the accused is entitled to bail. Reference has been made in support, to the case of Nazar Shah v.
4. The State reported In 199$ PCr.L1 page 1540.
5. ' Learned counsel has further argued that the compliance of section 103, Cr.P,C. Was not made and excise employees/constables were the Mashirs of recovery. He further submitted that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence with which he is charged and that the applicant is involved by excise police due to enmity. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that this is an offence against the society and now-a-days this offence is increasing day by day and is affecting the people at large.
6. ' We have given ample consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for applicant and have gone through the record. We have come to the conclusion that the grant of bail in such offences which are increasing day by day in the society and in order to curb the same, these laws have to be applied in a manner ensuring the deterrent effect. These accused of offence traversing the public morality, cannot be allowed to evade punishment merely on technicalities.
7. The financial stakes involved in narcotics do increase the chance of an accused tampering evidence, thus, abusing the benefit of bail. Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, postulates that section 103, Cr.P.C. Shall not apply to the arrest and search made under the Act.
8. ' So far the arguments by learned counsel for the applicant to the effect that case would not be covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., as according to him only 500 grams of opium were sent to expert is also no tenable. Subsection (2) of section 51 of the Narcotic Substances Act controls the grant of bail normally, as provided by Cr.P.C. Subsection (2) of section 51 of the Act runs as under:-- ' Section 51.--- ..........................................................................
(2) In the case of other offences punishable under this Act, bail shall not be normally granted unless the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for the grant of bail and against the security of a substantial amount."
9. ' The case of Nazan Shah v. The State (supra) referred by Mr. Sarfraz Khan Jatoi does not take into consideration the effect of sections 25 and 51(2) of Control of Narcotics Substances Act and even otherwise is distinguishable on account of peculiar circumstances of that case wherein besides allegations of false implication, the sealed quantity of narcotics was found different from that received by the Chemical Examiner. The learned Judges dealing with the said reported case had found that the conduct of Investigating Officer smacked of mala fides and false implication could not be ruled out. The present case does not contain any such assertion.
10. ' The Honourable Supreme Court in a case of Imtiaz Ahmed v. The State reported PLD 1997 SC 545, has refused bail in a case which was not coming under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And their Lordships have held as under:-- "The Courts should not be oblivious of the fact that at present country is confronted with many serious problems/difficulties of national and international magnitude, which cannot be resolved unless the whole nation as a united entity makes efforts. The desire to amass wealth by illegal means has penetrated in all walks of life. The people commit offences detrimental to the society and the country for money. Some of the holders of the public office commit or facilitate commission of offences for monetary consideration. In the above scenario the Courts' approach should be reformation-oritented with the desire to suppress the above mischieves. To achieve the above objective, it is imperative that the Courts should apply strictly the laws which are designed and intended to eradicate the above national evils but at the same time, they are duty bound to ensure that the above approach should not result in miscarriage of justice. It should not be overlooked that Article 9 of our Constitution, which relates to a fundamental right, guarantees life and liberty of every person. Life, inter alia, includes the right to have access to a fair and independent judicial forum for redress. A balance is to be struck between national and individual interest/right."
11. Under the circumstances and this being a fresh case of October, 19981 which has not yet proceeded, since 1500 grams of opium were recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is punishable with death, we do not find this a fit case for grant of bail. The application was, therefore, dismissed through short order, dated 11-5-1999. These are the reasons.