1. ' WAHID BUX BROHI, J.---Applicant Noor Shah has been arrested for an offence punishable under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. ' According to F.I.R. The complainant, A.S.-I. Iftikhar Ahmed on receiving spy information on 31-5- 2004 reached at Dera of notorious narcotics dealer Noor Shah at 1915 hours and tried to arrest one Suleman Khan who was required in F.I.R. No,93 of 1994 of Police Station Jackson Karachi but the applicant and his accomplices resisted when the police party tried to apprehend them. They ran away and out of them Suleman threw a white coloured plastic bag containing 90 rods of Charas weighing 1150 grams and applicant Noor Shah threw away one plastic bag containing 20 slabs of Charas weighing 1420 grams. They also fired at the police party. The property was taken to police station where F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Syed Mahboob Ali Shah, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned A.A.-G. For the State.
4. ' Learned counsel for applicant contended that the Charas was not secured from actual possession of the applicant; the samples were dispatched to Chemical Analyzer after about 18/19 days' delay, while the police officer who arrested the accused was of the rank of A.S.-I.
5. ' According to him the case against applicant would require further enquiry. He relied on Gul Zaman v. The State 1999 SCM R 1271; Abdul Majeed v. The State 1998 SCM R 458; Khalid Nawaz v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 2008; Syed Qayyum v. The State 2000 M LD 842 and Javed Akhtar v. State PLJ 1997 (Cr.C.) 1310.
6. ' Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned A,A.-G. Opposed the bail and submitted that the applicant was seen throwing away the narcotics and there is positive report of the Chemical Examiner while the delay in dispatching the samples for analysis can be explained at the trial.
7. ' We have considered all these arguments. The material collected by the prosecution shows that the applicant threw a bag containing 1420 grams Charas and ran away along with co-accused making fire from pistol. The Chemical Examiner's report is in the positive and at the most there is delay in dispatch of the property for which it is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that a reasonable explanation can be offered at the trial. Presently, no peculiar circumstances are pointed out to create doubt owing to delay in dispatch of the specimen. The case is at its early stage and no evidence has so far been recorded.
8. ' In Gul Zaman's case 1999 SCM R 1271 it was observed that bail could be granted to an accused involved in an offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and section 51 of the aforesaid Act was no bar in this regard. However, in the cited case no incriminating recovery was effected from the accused nor any other material was available to connect him with the commission of the offences. In the instant case, the facts are distinctly different. The applicant is said to have thrown away a packet containing 1420 grams of Charas and while fleeing away he had made fires also in order to deter his arrest, it cannot be said at this stage that he was not connected with the offence of possession of narcotics.
9. ' The case of Abdul Majeed 1998 SCM R 458 would not directly apply to the present case since the offence therein was under Article 4 of the Prohibition (EOH) Order, 1979 and the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant had already been reduced from 7 years' to 2 years' R.I. The case of Khalid Nawaz 1998 PCr.LJ 2008 was under the defunct Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance and although it was held that A.S.-I. Of Police was not competent to initiate proceedings, but in view of the observations of Honourable Supreme Court in State v. Bashir PLD 1997 SC 408 it cannot be said that the proceedings stood vitiated altogether . In Abdul Qayyum's case 2000 M LD 842 the paramount consideration for grant of bail was that the prosecution miserably failed to bring any material on record to connect the accused/applicant with the commission of the offence. It is not the case here. Regarding the delay in dispatch of the specimen to Chemical Analyser learned counsel relied on Javed Akhtar's case PLJ 1997 (Cr.C.) 1310, but in this regard it is relevant to mention that the trial had been completed and the matter had come up in appeal before the Lahore High Court wherein it was noted that the prosecution failed to offer any explanation at the trial about the delay in dispatch. In the instant case, it is too early and learned A.A.-G. Has submitted that such explanation can be offered at the trial.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that no ground is made out for bail. The application is accordingly dismissed.