2013 PLP 786 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.

Through this bail application, the applicant challenged the order dated 12-3-2012 passed by the Sessions Judge/ Judge Special Court Narcotics Mirpurkhas whereby the bail application was dismissed. The brief facts that leading to the lodging of F.I.R. and as transformed by applicant on its own are as under:-- "It is complained that today i.e. on 14-2-2012 vide PP Entry No. 4 at 1200 hours I accompanied with C/Mohammadin and Safdar Hussain in Government Vehicle No.SP-7304 driven by driver Abdul Nabi went for patrolling in the beat and at 1530 hours reached at Mobilink Tower and found one person available there and looking the vehicle he tried to escape. We stopped vehicle, encircled and apprehended him and inquired about his escape but he did not give satisfactory reply. Being suspected he was arrested and inquired his name and whereabouts on which he disclosed his name as Sohrab son of Sulleman, caste Shar R/o Village Qasim Shar Taluka Sindhri. His personal search was made and recovered one theli containing three pieces of charas. The charas was weighed which became to 1250gms. out of which 5 grams from each piece total 15 grams separated for chemical examination while remaining 1235 grams separately sealed and parceled. Due to non-availability of public mashir mashirnama was prepared before C/Mohammadud-din and C/Abdul Nabi and returned at Police station along with accused in custody. As accused Sohrab kept in his possession charas committed offence punishable under section 9(c) Narcotics Act. Therefore on behalf of State such case is registered against him." It is the case of the applicant that there is an enmity between the applicant and the SIP Khair Muhammad Narejo who resides in the same locality and in consequence whereof he was arrested while he was sitting elsewhere and not at the place of incident and as such falsely implicated and foisted charas against the applicant. It is further contended that it is a borderline case and he is confined in jail for no offence. Learned D.P.G. half-heartedly argued the bail application and relied upon the report of the chemical examination. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It appears that the offence was allegedly committed at 1720 hours in day time on 14-2-2012 and no private mashir/ defence witnesses were cited. It is the case of the prosecution that on search, three pouches of charas were recovered and it was weighed which came to 1250 grams out of which 05 grams from each pouch were taken and were sent for examination in a single pouch. The report of the Examiner though came positive but it could be difficult to ascertain that all three pouches contain charas as the 5 grams from each pouch and sent in a single pouch for examination which must have got mixed, which should not have been done. All these samples should have been sent separately. The other points that needs to be considered is that there are no private mashirs who were present on spot at the time of preparation of mashirnama. It is thus a case of further inquiry. It is a case where enough doubts and questions have been created and further it appears to be a borderline case which attracts the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of section 9 of C.N.S. Act and it appears that by a small margin it exceeds from 1000 grams. It is also admitted that the accused is not previous convict or involved in such like cases, thus in view of dictum laid down in the case of Noor Ali Khan v. State (2003 MLD 637) and 2011 PCr.LJ 177, the applicant was granted bail by short order and these are the reasons of my short order. MWA/S-68/K Bail granted.