2013 PLP 1876 (MLD)

FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J.

Granted.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3. Through this application, the applicant seeks bail in F.I.R. No.559 of 2012, Police Station Darakhshan, under sections 6/9(c)/11/ 15/16/34 of Anti Narcotic Control Act, lodged by complainant A.S.-I. Muhammad Naim Awan on 24-11-2012, when he was in Bukhari Commercial Area in connection with some investigation he heard slight explosion and smell coming out of flat situated at 4th Floor, Bukhari Commercial Area Lane No.7, Building No.23-C, he informed the higher authorities and reached at spot where one Humayoon Usman told him that three persons who were residing at 4th Floor have escaped in Car No. 727 Toyota Corolla, Black Colour while one of their companion is available in the flat. The complainant also informed the Bomb Disposal Squad, they came and searched the flat checked some chemical cans and declared that the same are not explosive substances. Meanwhile a person came out from bathroom having one bag hanging on his shoulder containing 1100 grams heroin, he disclosed his name to be Muhammad Altaf and the names of his companions to be Ali Asghar, Mansoor and Hameed Irani. Thereafter the complainant came at police station and lodged the F.I.R. The bail application was moved before the trial Court, the same was dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the case is false and fabricated, it does not appeal to a prudent mind that after explosion three persons escaped away and one remained inside the flat. Learned counsel has further contended that it also does not appeal to a prudent mind that a person came out from bath room having one bag hanging on his shoulders containing 1100 grams heroin. Learned counsel has further contended that actual culprits after the alleged incident escaped away, however, the police arrested the present applicant, who was passerby, only to show their efficiency. Learned counsel has also contended that co-accused Umeed has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18-2-2013, as such under the rule of consistency the present applicant is also entitled to the same concession. Learned A.P.-G. has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that present applicant was arrested at spot and 1100 grams heroin was recovered from his possession, the same was sent to the chemical examiner and report is in positive. Learned A.P.-G. has further contended that other articles seized from the place of incident were also sent for the chemical examination, as per chemical examiner's report the item Nos.10 and 11 were containing cocaine. All the articles and chemicals recovered from flat were used for preparing the heroin. Per prosecution, the case against the applicant is that he was apprehended from inside the flat on information of one Humayoon Usman, at the time of his arrest 1100 grams heroin was recovered from his possession. Humayoon Usman in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. has stated that on his information the police came there and arrested the applicant. It is further case of prosecution, that at the time of incident chemical drums and cans used in manufacturing heroin powder were also recovered. All the persons of locality in their statements before the investigating officer have supported the recovery of chemical and other articles. As per prosecution case the flat used for manufacturing the heroin powder was hired by applicant Muhammad Altaf from one Qamar Shamim, who in his statement before the investigating officer has corroborated the prosecution version. As per prosecution the entire quantity of contraband recovered from the applicant was sent to chemical examiner who opined the same to be heroin powder. The recovery of heroin powder and chemical used for manufacturing the heroin powder is supported by the habitants of building, which is sufficient evidence to connect the applicant in this case. The case of co-accused Umeed was different from the case of present applicant as neither co-accused Umeed was arrested at the spot, nor heroin or other chemicals were recovered from his possession. As such the rule of consistency will not apply to the case of present applicant. The observations are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party. The criminal bail application is dismissed. MWA/M-73/K Bail refused.