Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1863‑B of 1985, decided on 6th August, 1985.

‑‑‑S.498‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 6 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner involved in selling heroin at a large scale and heroin in sizable quantity recovered from a Chobara, allegedly occupied by petitioner, at instance of co‑accused‑‑Petitioner unmistakably implicated in F.I.R. as well as in the inculpatory statement of co‑accused‑‑Affidavits produced in petitioner's defence, held, not of much material at bail stage‑‑No justification for grant of" bail before arrest thus existed, in circumstances‑‑Bail declined.

Sana Ullah etc. v. The State 1983 S C M R 15 ref.

M.B. Zaman and Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Petitioner.

M. Saleem Shad for the State.

This application for bail before arrest has been moved on behalf of the petitioner who is said to have been involved in selling heroin at a large scale. A raid was conducted through a decoy witness. Muhammad Saved co‑accused was arrested and he led to the Chobara allegedly occupied by the present petitioner from where 1,550 small packets besides four kilograms of bulk heroin and a bottle of liquor were recovered. It is claimed that the Chobara did not belong to the petitioner, nor was it occupied by him. In support of this plea, affidavits of the owner and a few others are relied upon. Even a rent deed has been produced to show that it has been occupied by some other tenants, namely, Muhammad Bashir etc. It was also contended through affidavits that no raid was ever conducted on the premises.

2. The statement of Muhammad Saeed co‑accused being inculpatory ostensibly constitutes some evidence against the petitioner. He in a great detail disclosed how he was selling these packets for the petitioner transacting a business of about twelve thousand rupees a day. He added that even a D.S.P. was supporting the petitioner. For purposes :of bail, ordinarily one has to confine oneself to the F.I.R. which unmistakably implicates him. Tile recovery of such a huge quantity from the said premises at the instance of co‑accused cannot be altogether brushed aside. Had his statement been exculpatory, the position might have been a bit different. To all appearances, it was a case of dealing in heroin at a large scale. It is a great scourge for the society. The co‑accused is a labourer having had no means to deal in the stuff at such a large scale. The business requires a lot of money as also care which could not be expected from a man of his means, and therefore, some sponsor must needs be there. The indications are that it is the petitioner who was backing all this.

3. Earlier the petitioner absented himself from the Court of Sessions after obtaining interim bail. Although the contention was that he should have been given an opportunity to explain why he avoided appearance. yet I had to put a note of caution lest he repeated the same conduct. It is reflective in some measure. The affidavits in defence do not appear much material at this stage. Sana Ullah etc. v. The State 1983 S C M R 15 may be relied upon in this behalf.

4. There is no justification for bail before arrest. The petition is dismissed.

S. G. D. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.