MATEEN AHMAD Versus STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant who is accused in Crime No. 100/92 of Police Station Kalakot registered under section 3/4, Prohibition (E.O.H.) Order, 1979, has approached this Court for bail after his such application moved in the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge, (East) Karachi was rejected on 15-2-1993.

2. Allegation in the F.I.R. is, that while, A.S.I. Inam Muhammad of Police Station Kalakot was patrolling the area, he got spy information that one person was selling "heroin" in the lane known as Hidayat Shah's lane. On such information at 14-30 hours, applicant was arrested from the said place in presence of H.C. Muhammad Ashraf and P.C. Abdul Ghaffar and from the pocket of his shirt, a packet containing 100 grams of "heroin" and cash amount of Rs.125 was recovered. He was arrested in presence of said Mashirs and sent up for trial.,

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that although the police had advance information, they did not take respectable persons of the locality during arrest, search and recovery and in these circumstances the whole exercise conducted by the police becomes doubtful. It is next contended that complainant A.S.I. Inam Muhammad who lodged report has himself investigated the case which is not in accordance with law. The learned Advocate in support of this contention referred to 1988 M L D 2954 where bail to an accused charged for offence under section 3/4 of Prohibition Order was granted when admittedly there was no witness from public to attest recovery memo. He has also referred to 1988 P Cr. L J 2183 and 1988 P Cr. L J 1223, where similar view was taken and bail was granted.

4. He then referred to 1990 P Cr. L J 26 where it was held that the investigation of the case by complainant Inspector of Police himself would amount to mockery in the eye of law and besides the fact that two respectable inhabitants of locality had not witnessed the search and recovery, bail was granted.

5. Mr. Zubair Qureshi learned Advocate appearing for State had opposed the grant of bail and has argued that the police officials are as good witnesses as any private citizen and merely on that account applicant would not be entitled to grant of bail. In support of this contention the learned Advocate has referred 1992 P Cr. L J 867.

6. I have heard the arguments of learned Advocate and perused the record. During the scrutiny of papers it was found that the "heroin" allegedly recovered from the applicant-was sent to chemical analyser on 26-12-1992 as reflected in the report of chemical analyser and the learned State counsel was unable to explain the cause of such delay. It is also stated at the Bar by the learned Advocate for the applicant that since the date of his arrest on 14-7-1992 no witness is examined by the trial Court. The area wherefrom the applicant is said to have been arrested, is thickly populated place and no efforts are made to associate a respectable witness from the public. The investigation of the case has been conducted by the complainant A.S.I. Inam Muhammad himself. For all these reasons, in my view case of applicant requires further inquiry and I am inclined to grant him bail. Applicant Ali Muhammad alias Ali Kuchi son of Qasim shall be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

7. N.H.Q./A-1456/K

8. Bail granted.