Mst. Nazeerah V. The State,

2024 P Cr. L J 937 [Balochistan] Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J. Mst. NAZEERAH ---Application Versus The STATE--- Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. 107 of 2023, decided on 27th June, 2023. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----Ss. 497(1), proviso & 497(2) ---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 (c) & 51 ---Possession of 1590 grams ICE and 560 grams of heroin---Post -arrest bail, refusal of---Woman accused ---Organized crime, involvement in ---Petitioner (woman accused) was, admittedly, arrested red -handed and recovery of illegal contraband was affected from her possession, which prima facie suggested that there appeared reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had committed offence punishable under S. 9(6)(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which provided punishment of imprisonment extending to 14 years but not less than 10 years ---Though ICE (Methamphetamine) being a psychotropic entails punishment under S. 9( 4 ) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act ,1997, for three years but not less than one year ---Offence punishable under S. 9(6)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act ,1997, falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497 (2) of the Cr.P.C read with S. 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act , 1997, did not allow the petitioner/accused to be enlarged on bail ---Though proviso of clause (1) of the S. 497, Cr.P.C, extends concession of bail to woman accused, involved in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, but nowadays women folk are involved as carriers for transportation of narcotics, as such, the felony alleged being an organized crime cannot be equated with ordinary crimes ---Record revealed that the petitioner (women accused) was resident of another province and there was an apprehension that she would abscond and would not turn up to face the trial ---Plea of the petitioner of being falsely implicated, could not be attended to at bail stage as deeper appreciation was impermissible at bail stage---Petitioner (woman accused) had failed to make out her case for entitlement of concession of bail --- Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Tahira Batool v. State PLD 2022 SC 764 and Noor Khan v. State 2021 SCMR 1212 ref. Shams -ur-Rehman Rind for Applicant. Muhammad Ashraf Bazai, Assistant Attorney General for the State. Date of hearing: 21st June, 2023. ORDER SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. ---Applicant Mst. Nazeerah seeks bail after arrest in a case vide FIR No.08/2023 dated 08.05.2023, registered with Railway Police Station, Quetta by complainant SI/SHO Zia ur Rehman under the offences punishable under section 9 (2)(6), 9(1) (6)(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("Act of 1997") for recovery of 1590 grams Ice and 560 grams heroin wrapped in plastic packets (sachets) made from her personal search. An attempt for grant of bail failed on 25.05.2023 before learned Additional Sessions Judge -III/Special Judge CNS, Quetta.

2. Tersely, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant SI/SHO Zia -ur-Rehman got registered the FIR ibid with the allegation that on 08.05.2023, he along with other Police personnel were doing snap checking at Railway Station, Quetta, where they found the applicant suspicious and as such on personal search got recovered 560 grams of heroine and 5 sachets of ice, weighing 265, 535, 270, 275, 245 grams each, total 1590 grams from the possession of the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alias contended that the accused -applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. Added further that the investigation of the case has been completed and the applicant is no more required for further investigation, as such, the applicant being woman is entitled to be released on bail. Conversely, learned Assistant Attorney General strongly opposed the bail of the applicant and contended that the applicant has been specifically nominated in the FIR and there is no mala fide on the part of the prosecution. He further contended that the applicant has been arrested red handedly with heroine and ice which disentitles her for the concession of bail.

4. Heard. Record scanned. Admittedly, the applicant was arrested red -handedly and recovery of illegal contraband was effected from her possession, which prima facie suggest that there appears reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has committed offence punishable under section 9 (6)(C) of the Act of 1997, which provides punishment of imprisonment extending to 14 years but not less than 10 years with fine up to five hundred thousand rupees but not less than one hundred and twenty five thousand rupees, whereas Ice (methamphetamine) being a psychotropic substance mentioned at serial number 47 of the Schedule- I entails punishment under section 9 (4) of the Act of 1997 for three years but not less than one year along with fine up to one hundred and fifty thousand rupees. The offence punishable under section 9 (6)(c) of the Act ibid squares within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(2) of Cr.P.C read with section 51 of the Act of 1997, which does not allow the applicant to be enlarged on bail.

5. We are conscious of the proviso of clause (1) of the section 497 Cr.P.C, which extends concession of bail to a woman accused, indulged in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, but we are also mindful of the fact that nowadays women folk are involved as carriers for transportation of narcotics, as such, the felony alleged being an organized crime cannot be equated with ordinary crimes. Record also reflects that the applicant is resident of Shikarpur and there is an apprehension that she will abscond and would not turn up to face the trial, as such, we believe that the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail. Our view is fortified with the dicta expounded in the case of "Tahira Batool v. The State" (P L D 2022 Supreme Court 764). The Relevant para No.6 is reproduced herein under; "6. The exceptions for refusing bail in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. are therefore also applicable to the accused who pray for bail under the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause. These exceptions are well settled by several judgements of this Court. They are likelihood of the accused: (a) to abscond to escape trial; (b) to tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses to obstruct the course of justice; or (c) to repeat the offence keeping in view his previous criminal record, nature of the offence or the desperate manner in which he has prima facie acted in the commission of offence."

6. So far as the plea of false implication is concerned, the same cannot be attended to at this bail stage as deeper appreciation is impermissible while parting with the bail application. In this regard we would like to refer to the case of 'Noor Khan v. State' (2021 SCMR 1212).

7. Resultantly, the instant application being bereft of the merits fails, thus dismissed. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, which shall not affect the merits of the case. MQ/116/Bal. Bail refused.