Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERIMuhammad Waseem Samo
2008 M L D 627
2008 M L D 627
[Karachi]
Before Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 369 of 2006, decided on 13th July, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9---Bail, refusal of---Case of prosecution was supported by the witnesses and Chemical Analyzer's report---Material available on record showed that reasonable grounds were found to exist for believing that accused was involved in the case---Police entry made in the Roznamcha of Police Station, was yet to be produced in the evidence and that was subject to proof by examining the witnesses---Accused appeared to have taken the plea of alibi through said Police entry, which plea had to be examined after producing the evidence at the time of trial---Said points could be properly appreciated after assessing and appreciating the evidence led by the parties---Only tentative assessment of evidence was required to be undertaken at bail stage and the deeper appreciation of evidence was the function of the Trial Court, which could be done at the time of trial---Accused being not entitled to the concession of bail, his bail application was dismissed.
Muhammad Waseem Samo for Applicant.
Farrukh Zia Shaikh, Special Prosecutor A.N.F. a/w Ms. Afsheen for the State.
ORDER
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---Brief facts giving rise to the present bail application are that on 10-12-2005 at 6-45 a.m. on the pointation of spy a car bearing No. D-0424 was raided which was parked' at National Hospital. Main Korangi Road, DHA, Phase-I, Karachi. The applicant was found present in the car. On search of the car 4.5 kilograms of Charas were recovered from him along with unlicensed weapon. The accused and the property were brought to the Police Station where the complainant Javed Iqbal, Inspector ANF. Clifton, Karachi lodged the F.I.R. The property was sent to the Chemical Analyzer for examination and 'report. The said report is in positive. A bail application was moved before the Trial Court but the same was dismissed hence present application.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has not touched the merits of the case but has stated that the complainant Javed Iqbal had lodged two F.I.Rs. bearing Nos. 34 of 2005 and 35 of 2005 against one Saeed Badshah and one Zakir and argued that the complainant, in order to involve the applicant has filed the false F.I.R. He has further stated that accused was not arrested from the place of incident as on the same date at 6-30 p.m. the applicant had sent a message to the Police Station that some dacoits had raided his house and such report was mentioned in the station diary. He has also referred to two affidavits of defence witnesses Habibur Rahman and Saeed Ahmed to support the said plea, therefore, he has stated that the case of applicant requires further inquiry.
3. Conversely, the learned Special Prosecutor ANF has stated that the case of the prosecution has been supported by the witnesses and positive report of the Chemical Anaylzer; that the F.I.Rs. 34 of 2005 and 35 of 2005 have no nexus with the F.I.R. of the present case that entry in the Roznamcha of the Police Station is a manipulated one and that is subject to proof, therefore, the same can be examined at the time of trial, as such, at this stage a case has been made out against the applicant.
We have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that the case of the prosecution is supported by the witnesses and Chemical Analyzer's report. From the material available on the record there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is involved in the case.
As regards the F.I.Rs. Nos. 34 of 2005 and 35 of 2005 lodged on 5-10-2005 and 6-10-2005 respectively, nexus between the said F.I.Rs. and the present F.I.R. is yet to be determined at the time of trial, as such, at this stage no definite finding can be given in respect of said aspect of the case.
4. As regards the police entry made in the Roznamcha of Police Station, the said entry is also yet to be produced in the evidence and that is subject to proof by examining the witnesses. It appears that the applicant has taken the plea of alibi through the said entry that plea has to be examined after producing the evidence at the time of trial. Therefore, these points can be properly appreciated after assessing and appreciating the evidence led by the parties. It is well-settled that at bail stage only tentative assessment of evidence is required to be undertaken. The deeper appreciation of evidence is the function of the trial Court, which can be done at the time of trial.
5. After considering the material available on the record we are of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
H. B. T./M-204/K Bail refused.