2026 PLP 555 (MLD)

Ali Baig, C.J.

Through this single consolidated order, we intend to dispose of the above titled bail petitions as both the bail petitioners are outcome of one and same FIR bearing No. 06/2025 registered at PS Stak Roundu.

2. The petitioners/accused namely Wazir Hassan and Muhammad Basharat have moved the above titled petitions under section 497, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in case FIR No.06/2025 registered under section 9-C of CNSA at Police Station Stak, Tehsil Roundu, District Skardu. The learned Special Judge CNSA Skardu has already dismissed bail petition of the petitioners, vide order dated 30.09.2025 passed in B.A No. 91/2025.

3. The laconic version of prosecution as narrated in the FIR is that on 18.09.2025 at about 5.20am, the local police at Stak Check Post have recovered 04 kg and 900 gram charas from the joint possession of the petitioners who were travelling in truck towards Skardu. On murasila of FC Muhammad Sharif, Commander Police Check Post Stak, the aforesaid FIR has been registered against the above named petitioners/accused at Police Station Stak District Skardu.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused argued that the local police have failed to cite any private witness of the locality during recovery of the contraband charas, as such the recovery from the petitioners is doubtful. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further submitted that the local police have not filed chemical examiner's report before the Court as such the recovery cannot be termed as recovery of charas in absence of chemical examiner's report. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that the petitioners are not previously convicted persons, and their past character is immaculate, hence they cannot imagine to commit such a heinous offence. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that joint recovery has been shown by the local police which creates serious doubt in the case of prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that the entire proceedings at the time of alleged occurrence has been carried out by FC Muhammad Sharif, who was not competent to carry any proceeding or investigation in the case under the relevant provisions of CNSA. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that the local police have failed to make any video of the occurrence, as such the case of the petitioners/accused falls within the ambit of further inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that the petitioners are behind the bars since their arrest and they are no more required to the local police for further investigation of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that the petitioners/accused are ready to furnish local solvent sureties if they are released on bail. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused have relied upon the judgments of superior Courts reported as 2025 MLD 730, 2009 PCr.LJ 695, 2009 PCr.LJ 1089 and 2012 PCr.LJ 595.

5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of State controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused by contending that the petitioners/accused have been directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR. The learned DPG further submitted that a huge quantity of charas i.e. 04 kg and 900 grams has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners/accused in presence of the independent witnesses. The learned DPG further submitted that the recovered contraband charas has been sent for chemical examiner's report which is not yet received. The learned DPG further argued that there is no enmity between the local police or any police official with the petitioners/accused and the offence committed by the petitioners is against the society, hence they are not entitled for concession of bail.

6. We have attended the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length with due care and caution and perused the available record with their able assistance.

7. From perusal of record it transpires that the contraband charas was recovered from a bag which was brought before the police from a truck by both the petitioners/accused and driver of said truck was also present at the time of recovery of contraband charas. The said charas was not recovered from the actual possession of the petitioners as bag containing the charas was lying in the truck. It is yet to be ascertained as to whether the petitioners/accused were actually in possession of the charas, hence case against the petitioners/accused is one of further inquiry.

8. Moreover, sample of recovered charas has been sent to the chemical examiner after delay of more than seven days. The concerned SHO was present before the Court at the time of arguments and he has failed to account for delay in sending the sample to the chemical examiner. Besides the above, the record is also silent as to why the sample was sent with such delay to chemical examiner.

9. Almost all the proceedings have been conducted by FC Muhammad Sharif who is also complainant of this case and despite the fact that the recovery has allegedly been effected in front of Police Station Stak in violation of relevant provisions of CNSA. Station House Officer and Addl. Station House Officer were present in the police station but they have not bothered to conduct recovery proceedings and preliminary investigation. Furthermore, police have failed to record or to take photographs at the time of alleged recovery of charas as the law permits the use of modern devices or techniques. In the instant case police have failed to apply modern devices and techniques. Moreover, the petitioners/accused are not previous convict and they are behind the bars since their arrest and they are no more required for further investigation.

10. For what has been discussed above, both bail petitions of the petitioners/accused are allowed and consequently the petitioners named above are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 300,000/-(Three Lac Only) with two local solvent sureties for each accused/petitioner in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

11. The observations recorded herein above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party at trial. Certified true copy of this order be also placed on the case file of Cr. Misc. No. 45/2025. File JK/40/GB ???