MIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' ABDUL RASHEED KALWAR, J.--- Applicant Mir Muhammad has been booked under section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide Crime No,86 of 2008 Police Station "B" Section Nawabshah. The F.I.R. Was lodged on 7-7-2008 at 1700 hours whereas the incident had taken place on the same day at 1600 hours.

2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed. In the F.I.R. Are that complainant Inspector Ali Bux Jamali Incharge ADRC, Nawabshah along with his subordinate staff comprised of H.C. Noor Ali, P.C.

3. Shahzado, P.C. Sukhio, P.C. Samano left Police Station B-Section Nawabshah in a government vehicle driven by one P.C. Mir Hassan at 1400 hours after keeping entry into station diary for the purpose of patrolling in the area. When they reached at Jamshed Colony, they received spy information that, one, person was selling heroin at the sewerage ponds near Gujarwah. The Police proceeded towards the pointed place and apprehended the applicant at 1600 hours. The police recovered from him the plastic bag containing 80 Purries of heroin having total weight 88 grams 5 larger Purries and 5 smaller Purries were taken out for the purpose of sample and it became 12 - grams of heroin which were sealed for chemical examination, remaining 70 Purries were separately weighed which became 70 grams and it was separately sealed Rs,420 were also recovered from the applicant. The Mashirnama was prepared, accused and case property were brought at Police Station where such F.I.R. Was registered.

4. ' On 3-11-2008 bail was granted to the applicant with following short order:--- "For the reasons to be recorded later on, the bail is granted to applicant subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,25,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court."

5. ' Now these are reasons of the said order:--- ' The learned Advocate for applicant has stated that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, that very small quantity of heroin has been recovered from the possession of applicant; that it is very easy to foist such quantity, which the police has done in order to show their efficiency, that the offence under section 9(a) of C.N.C. Act is punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or with fine or with both and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that the applicant is no more required by the prosecution.

6. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail saying that no doubt case is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. But since it is an offence against society therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

7. ' I have heard learned counsel for applicant, learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record.

8. Admittedly the case is punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or with fine or with both. The sample has not been taken from each Purie of recovered heroin but only 10 Purries have been taken out for chemical examination. There would be no proof regarding remaining heroin as to whether it was heroin or not. The applicant can tentatively .Be saddled with liability of possessing 12 grams heroin in case of positive chemical examination report. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars. For these reasons I had granted bail to the applicant as mentioned earlier.