ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT
KARACHI
Cr.B.A.No. 1035 of 2023
(Mumtaz vs. The State)
Date Order
with signature of Judges
For
hearing of bail application
06.06.2023
Ms. Nida advocate for
the applicant
Mr. Muntazir Mehdi,
Addl.PG for the State
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
IRSHAD
ALI SHAH, J.-
It
is alleged that on arrest from the applicant was secured 1045 grams of Charas by police party of P.S, Ajmair
Nagri, for that he was booked and reported upon. On
having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 1st Additional/Special
Judge/MCTC Karachi Central, the applicant has sought for the same from this
Court by way of instant bail application under Section 497 Cr.PC.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case
falsely by the police; there is no independent witness to the incident and co-accused
Ismail has already been admitted to interim pre-arrest bail, therefore, the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further enquiry.
3. Learned Addl.P.G
for the State has opposed to release of applicant on bail by contending that as
per amendment introduced in CNS law, the minimum sentence prescribed for the
alleged offence is 09 years; offence which the applicant has allegedly
committed is affecting society at large and the applicant is having criminal
record. In support of his contention, he relied upon cases of Noor Khan Vs. The State (2021 SCMR-1212) and
Gul Din Vs The State (2023 SCMR 306).
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. As per FIR, on arrest of the applicant
has been secured 1045 grams of Charas. In that
situation it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has
been involved in this case falsely by the police by foisting upon him such
recovery. No doubt there is no independent witness to the incident, but for
this reason, the complainant and his witnesses could not be disbelieved
particularly when they were having no ill-will or malafide to involve the
applicant in this case falsely by foisting upon him Charas.
The case of co-accused Muhammad Ismail is distinguishable to that of the
applicant for the reason that his name was disclosed by the applicant and from
him there is no recovery. The minimum sentence prescribed by law by way of
Amendment is 09 years. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the
applicant is guilty of the offence, with which he is charged; thus, no case for
his release on bail on point of further inquiry is made out. Consequently, the
instant bail application is dismissed, with direction to learned trial Court to
expedite the disposal of very case against the applicant and make its disposal preferably
within two months, after receipt of copy of this order.
JUDGE