CR. BAIL APPLICATION NO.1376/2013
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order with signature of
Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR HEARING.
08.11.2013
Mr.
Muhammad Majid Afzal Khan
advocate for applicant.
Mr. Muhammad
Iqbal Awan, APG.
……………
Through instant application
applicant seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No.148/2013, under section 6/9-C of
Narcotic Act, PS Mehmoodabad.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are
that complainant alongwith subordinate staff was on patrolling when they
reached at Ashraf Colony, they found two persons
suspicious thus arrest was made and recovery of contraband substance was
effected. According to prosecution applicant Ilyas Saleem Mirza was in possession of
1700 grams charas whereas Muhammad Saleem was having
1300 grams charas. The property and accused were brought to police station, such FIR was lodged, after usual investigation both
accused were sent up for trial.
3. Learned counsel, inter alia,
contends that applicant has been booked in the instant case with ulterior
motives, in-fact applicant before this incident, was arrested brother of
applicant Muhammad Ali Mirza moved applications
before the high-ups including the Honourable Supreme Court; applicant is not
involved previously in any other case; alleged recovery is foisted upon him;
there is difference between property mentioned in Mashirnama and sent to the
chemical examiner. Though place of incident is thickly populated area but
private witnesses were not joined in recovery proceedings, thus instant case
falls within the scope of further enquiry.
4. Conversely, while refuting the
above contentions, learned APG argued that alleged recovery is huge quantity of
contraband substance, offence is against the society and applicant has failed
to point out any enmity against police officials; directions can be issued to the
trial Court to conclude the case within a short span.
5. After meticulous examination of
contentions raised by respective counsel, it has surfaced that alleged recovery
is charas, all witnesses are police officials though recovery place is a
thickly populated area and it appears that there is difference of quantity of
property in mashirnama of recovery and chemical examiner report; thus this
aspect creates doubt and it is settled proposition of law that any doubt in
prosecution case, even at bail stage can be extended to the applicant.
Moreover, in case of Ghulam Murtaza
reported in PLD 2009 Lahore 362, policy has been laid down regarding quantum of
sentence. Instant dictum is upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Ameez Zaib reported in PLD 2012
(SC) 380 and Faridullah reported in PLD 2013 (SC)
302. Thus according to such policy instant case does not fall within
prohibitory clause of sub-section 1 of section 497 Cr.P.C.
Besides prosecution has not taken plea that applicant has any criminal history.
6. Keeping in view the above
circumstances the applicant has succeeded to bring his case within the purview
of sub-section II of section 497 Cr.P.C, hence he is
admitted for post-arrest bail in the sum of Rs.100,000/-
to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
J U D G E
Imran/PA