MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus STATE

ORDER

A case, under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 is registered against the petitioner as 8 Kgs. of charas was recovered from him while he was present near the shrine of Saint Gharib Ali in order to sell it (cannabis) to his customers. The 100 gms. of charas was separated as a sample and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The report of the Chemical Analyst was in positive. He applied for bail to the trial Court which was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought bail on the ground that no independent person from public was associated during the recovery of the drug from the possession of the petitioner and as such, there was violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that the recovery was mala fide; that the case was registered at the report of Muhammad Saeed Inspector, C.I.A. who also assumed the investigation which made the whole proceedings unlawful ab initio; and finally that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than eight months and as such deserves his release on bail.

3. The bail was opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the ground that even the police employees are good witnesses as independent persons do not come forward to become witnesses; that there was no mala fide on the part of the police; and that the investigation was conducted fairly and challan has already been sent to the Court where the trial is in progress.

4. We have considered the foregoing submissions and find that a huge quantity i.e; 8 Kgs. of charas was recovered from the petitioner who was allegedly selling it to his customers. The charas (cannabis resin) is a narcotic drug as defined in section 2(d) and (s) of the Ordinance (ibid). This prima facie brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of clause (b) paragraph (iii) and clause (c) of section 9 of the Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1997 which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and a fine not less than one million rupees, as such, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause. The petitioner has no case for bail, particularly when the trial has already commenced and the petitioner has sought three adjournments in order to engage his counsel.

5. The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.

N.H.Q./M‑338/L Bail refused.