1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This is third bail application to this court moved on behalf of the applicants Shafiqur Rehman and Subhan. First bail application was dismissed for non-prosecution, second bail application was rejected by this court by order dated 16-4-2008 on the following findings:- "Mr. Muhammad Ali Meerza, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail. 1 have gone through the material available before me. No enmity has been alleged by the applicants with the police. It does not appeal to mind that such a huge quantity of narcotics could be foisted against the accused persons by the police without any previous enmity. As far as technicalities of late submission of challan etc., are concerned, I do not consider it proper to make this contentipn as ground for grant of bail in a narcotics case. The applicants were apprehended red-handed and there is alleged recovery of huge quantity of Charas. Under these circumstances I am of the view that this is not a fit case for bail and the same is rejected."
2. ' Hence this third bail application. The allegations against the applicants/accused are that they had been apprehended by the police on 31-8-2007, on spy information and six kilograms Charas was recovered from them and the case under section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was registered against them.
3. ' Trial Court had rejected the bail application by its order dated 15-8-2008. The reasons given are as under:-- "7. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of R&P available on record and police papers. In this case 6.25 Kgs of Charas Garda said to have been recovered from the applicants/accused and case falls under the prohibitory clause of section 51 C.N.S. Act, 1997. There are 6 witnesses cited in Challan. The complainant has been examined whereas one of the Mashirs is also examined who was declared hostile. Rest 4 witnesses are yet to be examined and are cited in the list of witnesses including one other Mashir of recovery of this case. Merely on the basis that a Mashir has been declared hostile is not considered fresh ground to enlarge the applicants/accused on bail. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has not been able to explain that the witness and the complainant who have already been examined how his evidence can be brushed aside.
8. No other fresh ground raised by learned counsel for the applicants/ accused in this bail application. In view of above, the application is dismissed."
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicants/ accused has argued that two witnesses have been examined one being the complainant SIP Muhammad Nawaz Tanoli, who is the police person and the private mashir namely Anwar was declared hostile by the prosecution as he was not supporting the prosecution case. Only two witnesses remained and that the co-mashir Imran Akbar as per report of ASI Siddiq of P.S. Mirpur, is absconding in a murder case. Now there are no private independent witnesses to be examined by the prosecution. Hence a case of further inquiry is made out considering that the applicants/accused are continuously in custody since the date of their arrest viz. 31-8-2007. The learned counsel has relied upon an unreported order passed in Criminal Bail Application No,522/2008 Mumtaz Khan v. The State, in which the accused was granted bail by the Sindh High Court for possession of one Kilogram Charas. The reason given being that substance was sent for chemical examination after a delay of "22 days", hence bail be allowed to the applicants/accused.
5. ' Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that huge amount of narcotics have been recovered from the possession of the applicant/ accused and there is no enmity between the Police, witnesses and the accused for false implication, the case is fit for refusal of bail. Learned State counsel has relied upon 2000 PCr.LJ 1752 (Shaukat Mehmood and another v. The State).
6. ' Considering the arguments and the case law cited I would concur with the finding of my learned brother Judge as given in his order dated 16-4-2008 that "it does not appeal to mind that such a huge amount of narcotics could be foisted against the accused persons by the police without pervious enmity". I also find that there are witnesses yet to be examined by the prosecution whose presence is shown at the time of recovery. The delay if any in sending the narcotics for chemical examination would not in any way prejudice the case of the applicants/ accused as no mala fide has been alleged and could not infer, delay per se should not prejudice the accused case.
7. ' With due respect to the case law cited which in my opinion A would not be applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case as can be discerned from the perusal of the citation.
8. ' The case law cited by the learned State counsel would apply to the present case, in which it has been held that "Law did not warrant deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage".
9. ' Considering that the huge amount of Charas has been recovered from the applicant/accused and the prosecution had yet to produce the evidence, only two P. Ws. Have been examined.
10. Accordingly at this stage I find that no case of bail is made out and this bail application is rejected.
11. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the matter without any delay.