IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-643 of 2021

Applicant: Mst. Hakimzadi, through

Mr. Muhammad Ali Dayo, Advocate

Respondent: State through Mr.Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG

Date of hearing: 19.11.2021

Dated of order: 19.11.2021

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Applicant/accused Mst. Hakimzadi w/o Shaman Bozdar, seeks her post-arrest bail in FIR No.152/2021, registered at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substance, Act, 1997. Her earlier bail application was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/ (MCTC),Ghotki, vide order dated 11.09.2021.

2. The allegation against the present applicant is that she was apprehended by the police party of police Station Mirpur Mathelo, headed by ASI Zahid Hussain Malik and 1500 grams Charas and 40 gram heroin were recovered from her possession for which present case was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the recovery proceedings are in violation of section 103 Cr.P.C and the applicant has falsely been implicated by the police due to political rivalry. He next contended that it is a case of border line between section 9(b) and 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997 which comes within the scope of section 9(b) of CNS Act, 1997 and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the applicant is in custody and no more required for further investigation, as such she is entitled for concession of bail.

4. On the other hand learned DPG has opposed the grant of bail contending that a considerable quantity of 1500 grams charas and 40 grams heroin have been recovered from the possession of applicant and since the offence is against the society, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned DPG for the state and have gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.

6. The applicant was apprehended by the police and allegedly 1500 grams Charas was recovered from her possession which marginally exceeded upper limit of section 9(b) of CNS Act and it is case of border line between clauses (b) and (c) of section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. In this regard I am fortified by the case law reported as, Sheerin Muhammad v. The State (2006 P.Cr.L.J 726), Mehboob Ali v. the State (2007 YLR 2968), and Ayaz v. The State (2011 P.Cr.LJ 177). Further all the witnesses of the incident are police officials and none from the public has been cited as witness and no efforts were taken by the police to associate private persons as witness. Moreover, the applicant is in custody and is no more required for further investigation.

7. It is settled principle of law that while deciding the bail plea of accused deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible and the material is to be assessed tentatively. From the tentative assessment of material available on record as discussed above, the applicant has been able to make out a case of further inquiry into her guilt. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the applicant is granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing her solvent surety in the sum of  Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

8. Observations made herein above are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to either party at the trial.

9. Instant Criminal Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA