2008 PLP 1578 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.

The petitioner Niazbat son of Lalzad Khan having failed to secure the concession of bail from the Court of Mr. Ishtiaq Taj. Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera, in case F.I.R. No.811, dated 20-11-2007 under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act read with section 13 Arms Ordinance Police Station Pabbi, District Nowshera, has come to this Court for seeking concession of bail.

2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that the complainant Syed Manzoor Ali Khan S.H.O. received a spy information that a person was coming from village Saleh Khan Kotli area via Jrooba hills who is dealing in narcotics. On this information, he along with Muhammad Ishaq A.S.-I., Muhammad Tahir HC, Ajmair Khan, Sikandar, Wali Rehman, Mushtaq FCs along with other police personnel laid a picket and in the mean time, from the hilly area, a person in possession of a Kalashnikov was intercepted. From his personal search, a loaded Kalashnikov along with 30 cartridges of 7.62 bore and Charas were recovered from a black shopping bag. On weighing the Charas, it was found to be six kilograms. Out of the contraband, four grams were sealed in separate parcel and were sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination, the report of which is in positive.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the time of occurrence and time of report has not been mentioned in the murasila but subsequently on 14-1-2008 on the direction of Deputy Public Prosecutor, it was incorporated and on his direction too, a separate challan under section 13 Arms Ordinance was prepared. That here was no time of occurrence in the murasila but while incorporating the murasila into F.I.R., the time of occurrence has been mentioned to be 1045 hours on 20-11-2007.

4. It was also argued that the recovery allegedly made from the petitioner is doubtful and though the report of F.S.L. is in positive but the sample was received late in the Laboratory which throws doubt on the credentials of the prosecution. In this respect he placed reliance on Inayatuallh v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 840 Pesh).

5. Miss Hamsheeda Begum Advocate learned State Counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. and huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner. She also argued that there is no animosity on the part of the prosecution with the petitioner and the offence is hit by the embargo contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. 6 I have gone through the record of the case and have minutely perused the case-law cited at the Bar.

7. The case-law cited at the Bar is distinguishable as the points agitated by the learned counsel have to be proved at the time of trial. Munior discrepancies cannot be a ground for the release of the petitioner on bail.

8. Without commencing upon the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the case of either prosecution or defence, suffice it to say that huge quantity of six kilograms Charas has been recovered from the petitioner. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal that the petitioner is also involved in case F.I.R. No.232 under sections 452/302/324/34, P.P.C. and case F.I.R. No.452 under sections 435/447/148/149, P.P.C. of Police Station Pabbi, District Nowshera. Although the learned counsel has submitted that these cases have been compromised but so far prima facie involvement of the petitioner is proved on the record of the case. He being a hardened criminal is not entitled to the concession of bail. Furthermore, the quantity recovered is six kilograms Charas as has held in the case of Gul Rehman, v. The State (2008 YLR 807) the concession of bail cannot be extended to the petitioner.

9. Having no merit in this bail application, the same is dismissed. As the investigation is complete and the prosecution has also drawn the complete challan, they are directed to put the same in Court within fifteen days and it will be highly appreciated if the learned trial Court disposes of this case as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months of the putting of challan in Court. H.B.T./138/P Bail refused.