P L D 2012 Lahore 383 (PLP)

By this single order we propose to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39-B-2012 (Abdul Wasay and another v. The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.58-B of 2012 (Muhammad Sajid v. The State) whereby petitioners have sought post arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 20 of 2011 dated 7-6-2011 registered under section 9(c) read with section 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Regional Directorate District Rawalpindi.

2. Brief facts in order to dispose of these petitions are that above mentioned F.I.R. was lodged by Syed Imtiaz Hussain, S.-I. mentioning that on spy information that a huge quantity of controlled substance (Ephedrine) was being transported by the petitioners in a vehicle bearing Registration No. IDC-4855, they put "Nakabandi" near G.T.Road, Rawat and at 3:30 A.M on the pointation of the informer the vehicle mentioned above was intercepted, which was being driven by Muhammad Sajid son of Muhammad Mansha, Siraj Din son of Atta Ullah was found sitting on the front passenger seat while Abdul Wasay son of Muhammad Raheem on the rear seat of the vehicle and a bag containing white crystal power was recovered, about which all the three petitioners told that it was ephedrine meant for the preparation of the medicines. They were not able to produce any permit or licence; that the said powder when weighed it found 25 kg, out of which six samples were prepared which were secured vide memo; that the accused in violation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 kept the powder with them, hence, committed offence mentioned above and on this report case was registered. Petitioners were arrested, investigated and sent to lock up.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that allegations against the petitioners are false, they have not committed any offence; that all the three petitioners have been arrested due to a conspiracy hatched by one Muhammad Latif, owner of LG Pharma, a pharmaceutical company at Lahore; that he managed to mislead the officials of ANF to arrest and involve the petitioners in this case; that immediately after the arrest of the petitioners whole of the situation was brought into the notice of high officials of ANF, who investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the stance taken by the petitioners has some force as they were got managed to be involved in this case by said Muhammad Latif as they had some business transaction with him, who in order to get rid of his liability managed the petitioners to travel by the vehicle along with powder in question and then he himself provided the information to the ANF officials and petitioners were apprehended. Learned counsel referred the interim report under section 173, Cr.P.C. dated 21-6-2011 as well as complete challan submitted by the Incharge Police Station ANF, Regional Directorate, Rawalpindi wherein the stance of the petitioners was found plausible by the Investigating Officer; that in the first report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and the subsequent report under section 173, Cr.P.C. all the three petitioners were placed in Column No. 3 and left at the mercy of the Court; that case of the petitioners requires further probe falling under section 497(2), Cr.P.C, therefore, as they had no knowledge that if substance was a controlled hence, they are entitled for the concession of bail; that petitioners are behind the bars, they are no more required by the police for further investigation purposes and their implication only can be seen after recording of evidence, hence, at this stage they are entitled for post arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor for ANF has vehemently opposed these bail petitions on the grounds that a huge quantity of prohibited controlled substance was recovered from the petitioners' possession, they were in the knowledge of its presence with them and whatever they have raised in their defence before the Investigating Officer except their oral assertion there is no evidence available on record that is why the I.O. has placed them in Column No.3 and submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. in the Court. Prayed that at present prima facie offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is made out, which is punishable up to death, hence, no ground for grant of post arrest bail to the petitioners, these petitions be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available before us.

6. Admittedly, Ephedrine is a controlled substance falling under Schedule V of Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, hence keeping it in possession clearly falls within the ambit of section 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. No-doubt, Ephedrine can be used for preparation of certain medicines but without any licence or lawful permission keeping the same in possession is certainly an offence as mentioned above in violation of section 6 punishable under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The stance taken by the petitioners that they were trapped by Muhammad Latif with whom they had some business transaction and he provided them the vehicle as well as the powder to be transported from Rawalpindi to Lahore is only a stance taken by the petitioners without having support of any evidence. The Investigating Officer only basing on their version during the investigation observed in report under section 173, Cr.P.C. that as the controlled substance is recovered from their possession, therefore, while placing them in Column No. 3, challan is submitted and they are left to be decided by the court about their guilt in accordance with law. In these circumstances, when a huge quantity of controlled substance is recovered from petitioner possession, which is prohibited and no valid licence whatsoever is produced by the petitioners and their co-accused who according to them allegedly provided the same to them is at large, at present no ground for grant of post arrest bail is made out. Resultantly, both these petitions are hereby dismissed. M.W.A./A-92/L Bail refused.