Kazim Ali Malik, J.--In a case F.I.R. No, 622 dated 10.10.2007 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered with Police Station City B-Division, Sheikhupura, Muhammad Riaz petitioner was arrested and declined bail by the learned trial Court. Hence, this bail petition.
2. Brief Acts giving rise to registration of the case in hand are that on 14.5.2007 early in the morning Noor Muhammad Patrolling Officer, Motor Way Police found Truck No, LHF 6425 parked unattended.
He immediately rushed towards the thick and saw a person present there who was identified as Imtiaz son of Shah Muhammad, caste Bharwana, resident of Distt. Khanewal who on inquiry disclosed that the drivers of the truck, namely, Babar Bharwana and Ramzan Sial had left somewhere. The complainant officer searched for the above named drivers unsuccessfully.
Thereafter he searched the truck and recovered 156 kilograms charras from its secret cavities.
Aforementioned Muhammad Imtiaz was-apprehended while Truck No, LHF-6425 was seized in case FIR. No, 467/2007 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura. After completion of investigation, Muhammad Imtiaz, accused was remanded to judicial custody in that case.
3. Safdar Ali, Sub-Inspector, Police Station City B-Division, Sheikhupura arrested said Muhammad Imtiaz in another case F.I.R. No, 185/2007 under Section 392 P.P.C. registered with Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura and obtained his physical remand. On 10.10.2007, he .disclosed his mind that huge quantity of charras had been concealed in the secret cavities of Truck No, LHF 6425 already in possession of Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura in case F.I.R. No, 467 of 2007 since 14,5.2007. In the light of his disclosure Safdar Ali, Sub-Inspector of Police Station City B-Division reached Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura and recovered six Monds and 30 kilograms charras from secret cavities of said truck. After the recovery Safdar Ali, Sub-Inspector got registered case F.I.R. No, 622 of 2007 at Police Station City' B-Division, Sheikhupura against aforementioned Muhammad Imtiaz, Babar Hussain, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Riaz, (petitioner), residents of Distt. Khanewal, Manzoor Ahmad and Hussain Khan, residents of Peshawar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it was/is a case of no evidence to the extent of Muhammad Riaz, petitioner. The learned Law Officer has opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R.; that he was involved in other cases with similar allegation and that the investigation was almost complete.
5. We have minutely and carefully examined the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and could not find an iota of evidence, which may prima facie connect the petitioner with the charge. Admittedly the petitioner was not present when his co-accused Muhammad Imtiaz led to the recovery of charras from secret cavities of the truck. Muhammad Riaz, petitioner was also not present when the disputed truck had been seized on 14.5.2007 by Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura in case F.LR. No, 467 of 2007. At the cost of repetition it is note worthy that at the time of seizer of truck on 14.5.2007 the case of the prosecution was that Imtiaz, Ramzan and Baber were the, actual culprits. The truck remained in the custody of Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura w,e,f, 14.5.2007 to 10.10.2007. Only 156 kilograms charras had allegedly been recovered from this truck by police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura on 14.5.2007. After about five months of seizer of the truck it revealed to Safdar Ali, Sub-Inspector of Police Station City B-Division Sheikhupura that secret cavities of the truck were loaded with charras.
On a question, the learned Law Officer after having examined the record admitted in express terms that Muhammad Riaz, petitioner was wrongly described as owner of the truck as it belonged to "a person of N.W.F.P. There was/is no direct, or circumstantial evidence in support of self assertion of Safdar Ali, Sub-Inspector that Muhammad Riaz, petitioner purchased the recovered charras from his co-accused persons. Needless to add that self assertion cannot be the substitute of evidence.
During the course of arguments, the learned Law Officer could not point out any material or evidence on the basis of which Safdar Ali, Sub-Inspector came to know that Muhammad Riaz, petitioner purchased the charras from his co-accused. Keeping in view the above said state of record; it can be said without any fear of contradiction that till date this is a case of no evidence to the extent of Muhammad Riaz, petitioner. The petitioner cannot be and should not be blamed for the disputed recovery of charras at the pointing out of Imtiaz, accused particularly when the petitioner was not present there at relevant time.
6. For what has been stated above, further detention of the petitioner in the case would amount to his illegal confinement. We, therefore, allow him bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, however, with the clarification that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail as and when legal and cogent evidence is made available against him.