MUNIR AHMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

The facts leading to the filing of this application seeking bail are that a case under Article 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, vide F.I.R. dated 28‑3‑1992 was registered against the petitioner with Police Station `D' Type Colony, Faisalabad. Allegation against the petitioner was that he was found in possession of heroin weighing 265 grams by the raiding party, who had received secret information about the petitioner's activities.

It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is absolutely false and is an outcome of the mala fides of the police because of enmity. Submitted that before the registration of the present case Mst. Surraya Bibi on 25‑3‑1990, had got a case registered against the police officials of the same police station for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, in which the petitioner was a prosecution witness. Similarly, petitioner's wife Mst. Zainab Bibi got registered a case against the police officials of the same police station for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on 24‑2‑1992, and thereafter in retaliation the present case against the petitioner was registered on 28‑3‑1992, exactly 4 days after registration of the case against the police officials. Learned counsel has further relied upon a list of 63 cases in which Haji Muhammad Ali Gulrez, a witness from public is prosecution witness. According to learned counsel he is a stock witness that is why he has been cited as a P.W. against the petitioner as well. Contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the file. As far as the registration of cases against the police officials of the same police station is concerned they have been accepted by learned counsel for the State, because the same is borne out from the record. Learned counsel for the State could not refute the assertion that the witness from public is a stock witness who is already a prosecution witness in 63 cases, mostly of similar nature. In these circumstances, case against the petitioner does become of further inquiry. Therefore, Munir Ahmed, petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty‑five thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Magistrate, Faisalabad.

3. It is further directed that a copy of this order shall be sent to S.S.P., Faisalabad, who shall personally look into the matter and hold an inquiry, because the chances of false involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Report of inquiry officer shall be submitted to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.

N.H.Q./M1137/L Bail allowed.