Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 PCRLJ 937
Court / Jurisdiction: Balochistan High Court
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-06-27
Parties: Mst. Nazeerah vs The State
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Balochistan High Court on 2023-06-27, officially reported as 2024 PCRLJ 937. In this matter between Mst. Nazeerah and The State, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2024 PCRLJ 937
Court Name: Balochistan High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Shaukat Ali Rakhshani Title: Mst. Nazeerah vs The State Case No.: Criminal Bail Application No. 107 of 2023 Date of Judgment:2023-06-27 Reported As: 2024 PCRLJ 937 Result: Bail refused
Judgment
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
---
## Page 2
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-1 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" (PLD 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.