SANA ULLAH vs THE STATE

' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Petitioner Sanaullah, who is charged in a case registered against him and others under section 9 C.N.S.A. , vide No,1218, dated 17-11-2011 in the Police Station Mir Jani Shah, District Peshawar, has asked for his release on bail mainly on the ground that nothing has been recovered from his possession; that there is nothing on record to show that either he is owner, conductor or driver of the vehicle wherefrom narcotics have been recovered; that there are statements of the P. Ws. Recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., disclosing that he was not present in the vehicle, in question and that, in identical cases, this court has extended the concession of bail to the accused similarly charged and this effects placed reliance on two cases of this court decided on 1-8-2011 and 19-12-2011.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State by opposing the grant of bail to the accused/ petitioner contended that a huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the vehicle wherein the petitioner along with his co-accused was present; that FSL report to this effect also supports the prosecution version qua recovery of narcotics and that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of bail can be properly addressed and thrashed out at the trial stage.

3. I have gone through the record Carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

4. I have perused the case-law produced in support of the bail application. In an identical case, the honourable Chief Justice of this Court in Bail Petition No,1091 of 2011 decided on 1-8-2011, has held as under:--- "Except the fact that the petitioner was found as inmate of the Truck, there is no other evidence of any nature to reasonable connect him as an associate of the co-accused, Islam Hussain, driver of the Truck who was in active control and domain of the same who could be Tagged with the requilite knowledge and when his employers, the owners are absconding in the case and because during personal search no amount of money was recovered from the accused-petitioner to slightly suggest that he was paid for giving company to the driver, the principal accused and when during intensive interrogation, the petitioner has not divulged nor have led the police party to any new discovery or recovery then, in the given circumstances his case appears to be distinguishable from the rest of co-accused because on simple presumption, how high sever it might be, liberty of a person cannot be curtailed."

In the instant case too there is nothing on record to prove that petitioner had any knowledge of the presence of contraband in the vehicle nor there is anything on record to establish that he was either owner, conductor or driver of the vehicle in question. Besides, record is also silent about recovery of contraband from the personal possession of the petitioner as the contrabands were in fact concealed in the secret cavities of the vehicle. 'There is yet another order of this court passed in a case of identical nature i,e, in Bail Petition 1637 of 2011 decided by his Lordship Mr. Justice Miftahuddin Khan on 19th December, 2011. The facts of the cases .Relied upon and the instant case are similar to great extent because in the instant case too petitioner is admittedly, neither owner, nor conductor or driver of the vehicle nor recovery has been effected from his possession.

Moreover, investigation in this case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Thus, on the strength, of afore-cited orders of this court, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, Two lac, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.