1988 PLP r (PCRLJ)

Shamim Abbas Bokhari and Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State. Hamad Shahzad petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.

2. F.I.R. version is that on 25‑6‑1987 Ehtisham‑ul‑Haq, Excise Inspector, Joint Task Force, received secret information that Hamad Shahzad petitioner was dealing in narcotics, upon which he organised a raiding party consisting of himself and other police officials and reached Sanda in an official jeep. Riaz Ali constable was sent to Hamad Shahzad petitioner as a fictitious purchaser. When the petitioner was about to deliver heroin to him, he gave a signal to the raiding party upon which Ehtisham‑ul‑Haq, Excise Inspector and his companions overpowered him and recovered heroin weighing twenty five grams from his pocket. A packet containing sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the report received from him is to the effect that it contained heroin.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Police and the Excise officials are inimically disposed towards the petitioner, who was previously involved in a number of false cases by them, and this has also been registered mala fide. It is submitted that in this very case the petitioner was sent to judicial lock‑up under the orders of the Duty Magistrate, who had given a clear direction to produce him before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 9‑7‑1987, but instead of producing him in Court. Munir Hussain, A.S.I. took him to the Police Station where he was illegally confined for two days and was later on produced in Court on 11‑7-1987. The learned Ilaqa Magistrate thereupon called upon Munir Hussain, A.S.I. and the incharge Judicial Guard, to explain their position and ultimately issued direction for the registration of a case against them under section 342 of the P.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that in this case the police had taken extra caution not to associate any witness from the public obviously for the reason that no unconnected person was going to support the fictitious raid. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the petitioner is involved in two other cases of similar nature and is a habitual offender. It is further submitted that the petitioner was kept in judicial lock up on 9th and 10th of July, 1987, because on 9th he was brought late from jail and no Magistrate was available and 10th of July was Friday. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of material available on the record. It is admitted by the learned State counsel that no person from the public was made to associate with the raiding party and the recovery was effected only in the presence of the Police and Excise officials. Munir Hussain, A.S.I., who investigated this case, is present in Court. He admits that a case under section 342 of the P.P.C. was registered against him under orders of the Ilaqa Magistrate, on the allegation that the petitioner was not produced in Court on 9‑7‑1987 despite the magisterial order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to the view that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner on bail is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfactions of Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate, Lahore. S.A./H‑72/L Bail granted.