MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner was arrested on 21‑10‑1993 from Chiniot Morr, Jhang while he was found in possession of 18 grams of heroin and cash amounting to Rs.500 including 2 currency notes of 100 denomination each signed earlier by the S.I. as the price of 3 grams heroin purchased by Ghulam Shabbir, Constables in plain clothes, from the accused/petitioner. On the basis of recovery formal report was prepared by Abdul Razaq, S.I. In-charge Police Post Sattelite Town, Jhang and was sent for registration of the case. Formal F.I.R. No.455/93, under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 was registered on the same day at Police Station Saddar, Jhang. Five grams out of the heroin allegedly recovered from the accused/petitioner was sent to the Chemical Examiner which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was found to be heroin.

2. The petitioner filed application for grant of bail before the Sessions Court which was dismissed on 21‑9‑1994 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery was fictitious. The petitioner was arrested on 18‑10‑1993 from his house, he was a labourer engaged in his vocation of selling fruit and has relied on 2 affidavits sworn by respectable of the locality. It has been further argued that the petitioner was in judicial lock‑up for almost one year and no progress in the trial of the petitioner has taken place so far, and the petitioner's family consisting of 7 innocent minor children including one invalid minor daughter are starving.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no independent witness of recovery and both the witnesses of recovery were police officials and the place of recovery being a Chowk frequented by large number of people and surrounded by shops, the provision of law as laid down under section 103, Cr.P.C. have been violated intentionally by the Investigating Officer who registered the case out of malice. The investigation was conducted by the complainant himself and thereby depriving the petitioner of an independent investigation wherein he could take any plea which could have been looked into by that Investigating Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for bail on the ground that the quantity of heroin recovered from the petitioner was 21 grams and he was found selling heroin and his case falls within the prohibitory clause as contained in subsection (1) section 497, Cr.P.C. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that the heroin has ruined many families in the society and that the petitioner was not entitled to any concession) in the circumstances of the case.

6. It is well within the jurisdiction of this Court to see that the liberty of any citizen was not snatched by the State only on the ground that the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The prosecution has failed to conclude its case within a period of one year and refusing bail at this stage would amount to giving a licence to the State to deprive any citizen of his liberty simply on the plea that the allegation against him was of selling narcotics.

7. In view of the above I consider that it is a good case for granting bail and I admit the petitioner on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in s the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Jhang.

N.H.Q./M‑1837/L Bail granted.