Sh. ZAHID JAVED vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

' Sh. Zahid Javed son of Hidayat Ullah, petitioner, by filing this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,75 of 2007, dated 11-3-2007, registered with Police Station Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, for an offence under section 9-C, of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2. The allegation in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Muhammad Younas, A.S.-I., Incharge Investigation, Special Cell, Circle, Chichawatni was that while he was on patrol duty along with some other police personnel near Okanwala Road, Chichawatni, he received a spy information that a notorious drug peddler namely Sheikh Zahid (the present petitioner) was present in the Cattle Market for drug pushing and if an immediate raid was conducted he could be apprehended; in consequence of this information, a raiding party was constituted and a raid was conducted during the course of which the petitioner, who was holding a blue coloured cotton sack in his right hand, was overpowered; on search two packets of Charas were recovered; the combined weight thereof turned out to be ikilo and 560 grams; out of the recovered Charas samples of 10 grams substance from each packet were separated and sealed into parcels; personal search of the accused yielded a cellular phone and Rs,3,080 as the alleged sale proceeds of narcotics. Resultantly the instant F.I.R.

Had been recorded.

3. The petitioner's application for post-arrest bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni vide order, dated 31-8-2007. Hence this petition.

4. We have heard Mr. Khadim Hussain Malik, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad Zia, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and have perused the record brought by Malik Barkat and Younas Sub-Inspectors.

5. We find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner ought to be disbelieved merely for the reason that raid had been conducted by an A.S.-I. In violation of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. According to the F.I.R.

Itself after conducting raid and effecting recovery of the contraband the matter had been referred to the Incharge Investigation of the concerned police station for further investigation. In the case of Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2003 SCM R 1237, the Honourable Supreme Court had overlooked raid conducted by an A.S.-I. And had held that it might not have been possible for him to have completed the time-consuming formalities at the cost of disappearance of the accused. As regards the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while effecting recovery, provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Had not been followed, section 25 of the Control, of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provides a complete answer. Further averments of the learned counsel that samples of the contraband had been sent for chemical examination belatedly and that the Chemical Examiner's reports was not written on the prescribed pro forma, are contentions which have to be looked into by the learned trial Court and not by this Court while seized of a bail application. It is for the trial Court to see as to why delay had been occasioned in dispatching the sealed parcels to the Chemical Examiner and what would be its effect. The final argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that C.I.A. Personnel could not carry out a raid, is also devoid of any merit inasmuch as there is nothing stopping the said personnel to enforce the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner stands involved in as many as sixteen criminal cases out of which at least one dozen are drug related ones. We find no merit in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed.