KARACHI: A judicial magistrate dismissed the post-arrest bail application of the Karsaz traffic accident suspect in a drug case.

However, suspect Natasha Danish’s counsel challenged the magistrate’s decision before a sessions court.

Last week, the suspect was granted bail in the main case by a sessions court but she was not released from prison due to another case filed by police against her after her medical report showed she was allegedly under the influence of methamphetamine (crystal meth/ ice) when she was driving the SUV on Aug 19. She had applied for bail and the magistrate reserved his order for today.

On Monday, Judicial Magistrate (East) Muhammad Raza Ansari dismissed the bail application.

Defence counsel challenges bail dismissal in sessions court

In his detailed order, the magistrate remarked: “The applicant is a well-educated lady having a good sense of living standards as well as of law, yet it is indeed surprising and disappointing for a person who being a well-educated drive a vehicle recklessly/ negligently without a licence under the influence of drug or intoxication, which resulted into the death of two innocent people and leaving others injured.”

“The grant of bail is the discretion of the court but when a case affects the society then the court should be mindful to exercise the discretion with great deal of vigilance and restraint,” the order said.

It said that the defence counsel had failed to satisfy the court regarding the “inapplicability” of Section 11 (drinking liable to tazir) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order of 1979 in this case.

The court noted that the aforementioned section was not confined to intoxicating liquor only but also included other substances.

Addressing the defence’s claim that the medical report only showed the presence of methamphetamine (ice) in the urine sample and not in the blood, the order said: “The report is concerned with medical jurisprudence and is based upon the opinion of an expert, yet it is not necessary for a drug/ ice to remain in blood and urine for the same period; the time period for which the ice remains in blood and in urine may vary.”

In response to defence counsel Aamir Mansoob Qureshi’s request for the safe custody of his client’s samples, the court rejected the plea and noted: “Nothing available in police file which may demonstrate that chain of safe custody in handling the samples is broken.”

Mentioning the defence counsel’s plea that raised questions regarding the registration of a second FIR (drug case) against his client, the court noted that the FIR was lodged in the light of the medical report which held the “applicant accountable for consumption of ice”.

The court ruled that the drug case was filed on behalf of the state and, therefore, the no-objection affidavits submitted by the legal heirs of deceased persons did not hold any weight.

“Aggrieved and dissatisfied” with the magistrate’s order, the defence filed an application under Section 497 of the criminal procedure code in a sessions court, seeking the post-arrest bail.

Published in Dawn, September 10th, 2024