Fida Muhammad vs State S — 2024 YLR 2483 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---Bail---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail orders are tentative in nature and should not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2483 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Fida Muhammad VS State S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Bail, grant/refusal of---Further inquiry---Prosecution case was that 380 kilograms heroin was recovered from the container of the accused-petitioner---Applicant during his business activities from 04.02.2022 to 29.06.2022 shipped six consignments to four different destinations by using services of three different export companies---Record showed that the container was not scanned or examined physically at Terminal/Port, as the Terminal Operator scanned only those containers, which were referred to by any Government Agency with specific request of scanning---In the present case no Government Agency requested for the scanning of the container and the container was processed in the yellow channel facility of the WeBOC system on the basis of profile of the exporter---On 14.06.2022, applicant made impugned shipment through M/s. Qtinity by hiring clearing services of M/s. Al-Kasib---As per material available with prosecution, applicant procured grey fabric and the machinery for packing purposes; packing of goods and narcotics was made by his employees/accomplices under his supervision, which he acquired on rental basis; he himself booked the Container through freight forwarder M/s. Swift Shipping Agency (Pvt.) Limited and uploaded the Container Release Order on WhatsApp group (Qtinity/ Swift /Rotterdam) for intimation and coordination of the group members; he uploaded weighment of the container on afore-mentioned WhatsApp group for intimation and further processing for customs purposes---As regard applicant No. 2, it appeared that he was the proprietor of M/s. Qtinity that shipped three consignments owned by applicant including the two from which narcotics were recovered---As per prosecution, he arranged financial instrument for the shipment of the impugned consignment but in good faith---From the final challan, it had been established that applicant No. 2 failed to exercise due diligence and thereby he allowed unauthorized use of his firm (M/s. Qtinity) by applicant No. 1 to export his consignment---Such act of the applicant No. 2was in violation of S.155E of the Customs Act, 1969, for which User ID of M/s. Qtinity had been blocked---However, as per material available with prosecution, the said applicant had not been found involved in purchasing of fabric and machinery for using in smuggling of narcotics or in hiring of warehouse where the goods were placed and packing was done or in funding of the shipment or transportation of the goods from the warehouse to the port---Besides, it was an admitted position that the said applicant himself wrote a letter dated 13.07.2022, requesting the Customs Authority for recalling of the container---Record showed that the said applicant was initially made a witness in the FIR---Admitted position from the record was that no incriminating evidence was available with prosecution against the said applicant to connect him with the commission of an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Merely using export I.D, license, etc., of the said applicant's company did not constitute per se any offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Hence, in such a situation keeping the said applicant 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 applicant No. 1 to connect him with the commission of alleged offence carrying punishment for death or imprisonment for life---No case for granting bail to him on the ground of further inquiry had been made out---Bail petition of applicant No. 1 was dismissed, in circumstances---So far, as the bail plea of applicant No. 2 was concerned, his case was found as one of further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Consequently, applicant No. 2 was admitted to post-arrest bail.

Fida Muhammad vs State S — 2024 YLR 2483 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR