MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Muhammad Akram petitioner an accused in case F.I.R. No. 91, dated 19‑3‑1988, Police Station Satellite Town Sargodha, under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.

2. 2.The FIR version is that on 19‑3‑1988 at 2‑20 p.m. Muhammad Masud Sub‑Inspector Incharge Range Crime Cell, Sargodha, received secret information that Muhammad Akram petitioner was selling heroin at the stone‑crusher of Abdur Rehman. He organised a raiding party consisting of police and excise officials and, apprehended the petitioner on the pointing out of the informer. On his personal search heroin weighing 0.9 grams was recovered from the pocket of his shirt out of which a sample weighing three grams was sent to the Chemical Examiner and his report is to the effect that it was heroin.

3. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the owner of the stone‑crusher over a business dispute and, after his involvement, he has taken over the stone‑crusher and is now in exclusive possession of the same. It is further submitted that it was an arranged raid on secret information but no witness from the public was associated, obviously for the reason that none was going to support a false story.. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of material available on the record. The memo of recovery was prepared by Muhammad Masud, Sub‑Inspector, Incharge Range Crime Cell, and its attesting witnesses are Muhammad Mumtaz ASI, Range Crime Cell, and Masud Ahmad AETO. The petitioner was arrested on 19‑3‑1988. The challan has been submitted in Court. His learned counsel states that he was not previously involved in any case. The learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert this contention. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party. I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha.

4. S.G.D./M‑874/L

5. Bail granted.