1994 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4-- Bail, grant of

Accused having no previous history of his involvement in criminal cases had suffered detention for a period exceeding nine months and his trial had not so far commenced despite direction of Sessions Court for early trial

Generally there was no satisfactory progress in the trial proceedings in criminal cases and even the prosecution did not evince the requisite interest in producing the witnesses with a view to expedite disposal of cases

Such being the position it was unfair to keep the accused in detention for an indefinite period as a measure of punishment and in anticipation of punishment, as he would get his due if found guilty in trial

Accused, in circumstances did not seem to be disentitled to the concession of bail and he was enlarged on bail accordingly. Muhammad Amir Ch. for Petitioner. Muhammad Arshad Khan for the State. Heroin weighing 125 grams was allegedly recovered from possession of the petitioner, when a police party conducted a raid, on 30-11-1991, while he was standing at the main gate of Gazi Poultry Farm, Lahore-Raiwind Road, Raiwind, and a case under Article 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was registered at Police Station City Raiwind, on the same day. The accused unsuccessfully approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for relief of his release on bail, and has now approached this Court for the same relief.

2. Submission is that offence under Article '3 would not be made out, as there is no evidence forthcoming to the effect that the accused had been engaged in sale or disposal of heroin on commercial scale, and he had only been found in possession of the commodity, which, as a matter of fact, had been planted on him, and further only one gram, out of the bulk claimed to have been recovered from possession of the petitioner, had been submitted for chemical analysis. The recovery witnesses are police officials, including a police Razakar, and no independent person from the locality was associated with the process of recovery, and this according to the learned counsel would render the exercise to be one without sanctity. These are the contentions which will come up for consideration and determination by the Court, when the trial takes place.

3. It has been stated at the Bar that although the challan has been submitted, the trial has not yet commenced, and it is not known when will it conclude. Presently, there is available no previous history of involvement of the applicant-accused 'n criminal cases. He has suffered detention for a period exceeding nine months. Although, there was a direction made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 16-8-1992, for early trial, no steps have visibly been taken by the trial Court in that direction. Experience is that generally there is no satisfactory progress in the proceedings of trial in criminal cases and the prosecution also does not evince the requisite interest in producing the witnesses with a view to expedite disposal of the case. This being the position, it would be unfair to keep the accused in detention over an indefinite period, as a measure of punishment and in anticipation of punishment. He will get this due, if found guilty in trial: For the present, he does not seem to be disentitled to the concession of bail. He shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A.C./Ilaqa Magistrate. N.H.Q./M-1540/L Bail granted.