2011 PLP 1699 (YLR)

NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Arbab, whose earlier bail application was rejected by learned Special Judge (Narcotics), Shaheed Benazirabad vide his order, dated 25-11-2010, passed in connection with Crime No.135 of 2010 registered at Police Station Sakrand, under section 9(c) C.N.S. Act, 1997. As per F.I.R. lodged on 27-6-2010 at 7-45 p.m. by the Inspector Habib-ur-Rehman S.H.O. of Police Station Sakrand, the complainant party during their patrolling duty, apprehended the applicant and secured two big pieces of charas lying in a plastic bag which was in the hand of the applicant. The recovered charas was weighed as 1500 grams, out of which, the sample of 100 grams was sealed separately for chemical examination and thereafter such F.I.R. was registered against him. The learned counsel for the applicant, relying upon the cases, reported as 2006 PCr.LJ 840, 2006 SCMR 1051, 2007 MLD 1846, 2008 YLR 351 and 2009 PCr.LJ 695, contends that the charas in two big pieces of total 1500 grams, was allegedly recovered from the accused but it is not known as to what was the weight of each piece. He further contends that only 100 grams of charas was separated as sample for chemical examination but it is also nowhere mentioned if such sample was taken from one piece or from both. He also pointed out that recovery was allegedly effected on 27-6-2010 but the sample was sent for chemical examination after delay of ten days on 8-7-2010. He also drawn my attention to the affidavits of two persons which were filed in support of the bail application before the trial Court showing that the applicant was apprehended from the Hotel in presence of these witnesses and no recovery was effected from him. He also contended that even otherwise, the applicant is liable only for 100 grams of charas, for which the chemical report has come in positive and such offence would fall under section 9(a) of C.N.S. Act, 1997 which is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. therefore, he submits the applicant is entitled for the concession of bail as there is no private witness in respect of the alleged recovery. On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Sindh appearing for the State, opposed the bail application. I have considered the above submissions and perused relevant record. No doubt, the F.I.R., does not show as to what was the weight of each piece of charas allegedly recovered from the applicant and whether the sample was taken from one piece or from the both However, the chemical examiner's report shows that only one sample piece was received by them. Accordingly, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant needs consideration that the applicant is liable for only one piece of charas allegedly recovered from his possession and the same would fall at the most under section 9(b) of C.N.S. Act, 1997. There is also delay of about ten days in sending the sample for chemical examination and there is no explanation for the same. In view of the above, the applicant who is in Jail since 27-6-2010 seems to be entitled for the concession of bail and therefore, he is granted bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of along with listed application. H.B.T./A-51/K Bail granted.