1992 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Saeed Ahmed Tirmzi for the State. The petitioner is accused of offences under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide F.LR. No.228/89, dated 1‑7‑1989 registered at Police Station Sanda, Lahore.

2. According to F.IR., in brief, on the receipt of secret information that a person by the name of Yausaf (the present petitioner) shall be going towards Chowk Yateem Khana, Bund Road, from the Batti Chowk on motor‑cycle while carrying heroin, and that, thereafter, a raiding party was organized and the said person on the motor‑cycle, the number of the said motor‑cycle is stated in the F.I.R., was intercepted and 2 bags of one kilogram heroin each were found hanging on the handle of the said motor‑cycle. It is further stated that 5 grams of heroin was taken out from each bag respectively and sealed into parcels and taken into custody alongwith the said person i.e. the present petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for his bail on the following grounds:‑‑ (i) that the case is false. That although the recovery is said to have taken place in a public place yet no public witness was associated with the search and recovery of heroin alleged; (ii) that as only ten grams of heroin was sent to the chemical examiner for his report, therefore, even a positive report in respect of the same shall not bring the case of the petitioner within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; and (iii) that in spite of the lapse of one year, the trial of the petitioner is yet to commence, as the case has been entrusted to the learned Sessions Judge, for trial. In this respect it was pointed out that the charge is yet to be framed. Therefore, it was argued that in accordance with 3rd proviso of subsection (1), section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has become entitled to bail as the trial of the case has not concluded within one year. In this respect, it was further pointed out, that the delay in the conclusion of the trial has not occasioned because of any act or omission of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the present bail petition but confirms that the case has been entrusted to the learned Sessions Judge for trial and that the charge is yet to be framed. Further confirms that one year has lapsed since the registration of the case.

5. In view of what has been stated above the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the B satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore. S.A./M‑139/L Bail granted.