Fida Muhammad vs State S — 2024 YLR 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Fida Muhammad VS State S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Bail, grant/ refusal of---Further inquiry---Accused were charged that they were found in possession of 47 kilograms methamphetamine---As regard accused "H", it appeared that he was the proprietor of the firm that shipped three consignments owned by accused "F" including the two from which narcotics were recovered---As per prosecution, "H" arranged financial instrument for the shipment of the impugned consignment to "F"---From the interim challan, it was established that "H" was not found beneficiary of the sale proceeds of the contrabands---In Interim challan, final challan and supplementary challan, "H" had been nominated as an accused for the alleged offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, without assigning any role---As per prosecution, "H" failed to exercise due diligence and thereby he allowed unauthorized use of his firm by "F" to export his consignment---Such act of the applicant "H"was in violation of S.155-E of the Customs Act, 1969, for which User ID of firm had been blocked---However, as per material available with prosecution, the said applicant had not been found involved in purchasing of salt and packing material for using in smuggling of narcotics or in hiring of the plot where the goods were placed and packed or in funding of the shipment and transportation of the goods from the warehouse to the port---No incriminating evidence was available with prosecution against the said applicant "H" connecting him with the commission of an offence under the Act---Merely using export I.D, license, etc., of the said applicant's company did not constitute per se any offence under the Act---Hence, in such a situation keeping the said applicant "H" behind the bars for an indefinite period would serve no purpose---From the tentative assessment of the evidence on record, it appeared that the prosecution had sufficient material against the applicant "F" to connect him with the commission of alleged offence carrying punishment for death or imprisonment for life---No case for granting bail to "F" on the ground of further inquiry had been made out---Every hypothetical question which could be imagined would not make it a case of further enquiry simply for the reason that it could be answered by the trial Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence---Trafficking/smuggling of ICE in huge quantity could have devastating effects on the society generally and it was a threat to honour of the country in international community particularly---Bail application filed on behalf of "F" was dismissed, accordingly---So far as the bail plea of applicant "H"was concerned, the case against him was found as one of further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application filed on behalf "H" was allowed, in circumstances.

Fida Muhammad vs State S — 2024 YLR 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR