'MUNIB AKHTAR, J.---The present bail application arises out of FIR, No, 01 of 2010 registered at Police Station ANF, Sukkur on 12-1-2010 at 10-00 a.m. In respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on the same day a few hours earlier at 8-30 am.
2. According to the complainant, who was the S.H.O.,. Police Station A.N.F., Sukkur, on the day of incident he along with a police team went patrolling in a Government vehicle at around 7-30 a.m.
Sometime later, at around 8-20 a.m., they received spy information that a drug dealer, i.e, the bail applicant, was standing on the roadside near Goserji stop, Bagerji road with a large quantity of Charas, waiting to deliver it to a customer. According to the complainant, he took along the informer with him, and when they reached the indicated place, the informer pointed towards the person standing there, who was encircled and apprehended. Since the passersby refused to be associated with the matter, two of the police party were nominated as mashirs. On enquiry, the bail applicant identified himself, and when he was searched, one slab of Charas weighing one kg and a smaller piece weighing 200 grams were recovered from him. According to the complainant, ten grams were removed from the slab as well as the smaller piece, and sealed on the spot for chemical examination, and the remaining Charas was also sealed. Thereafter, the bail applicant was arrested and the F.I.R, was registered as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was a borderline case, since the amount of Charas allegedly recovered was only marginally in excess of the one kg limit that took the matter within the ambit of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. In this regard, he referred to 2004 YLR 439. He submitted that a letter had been sent to the D.P.O., Sukkur at the instance of A.N.F. Authorities, who had enquired whether the bail applicant had any previous criminal record, According to learned counsel, the D.P.O. Had confirmed that the bail applicant did not have any previous record. Learned counsel further submitted that in the instant matter, the complainant, i.e, the S.H.O. Was himself the investigating authority, who had undertaken the entire exercise, including recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. He submitted that this cast a distinct shadow of doubt over the entire proceedings, since the S.H.O.
Would naturally be inclined to make out a case on his own complaint.
4. Learned S.P.P. Submitted that the bail applicant was apprehended red handed with the Charas.
The samples were taken at the spot, and sealed, and were sent immediately for chemical examination, which confirmed that the substance was indeed Charas. He relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in Cr.Bail application No,481 of 2009 dated 3-2-2010, in which the amount of Charas was 1500 grams, and bail was rejected. He also referred to 2006 PCr.LJ 1745, in which bail was also refused even though the amount of the narcotics substance involved was one kilogram, and the matter thus came within the ambit of section 9(b). He submitted that the ANF was regulated by its own special law; and that there was nothing to prevent the S.H.O. From being both the complainant and investigating officer. He prayed that bail application be dismissed.
5. From the perusal of the F.I.R. And the facts as presently available on record, it appears that in case of the bail applicant, the quantity of Charas involved does not exceed one kg by too much, which makes it a borderline case. There are authorities pointing in both directions in respect of borderline cases and the Courts have granted bail in some cases, but rejected bail applications in others. Learned counsel for the bail applicant referred to a recent judgment of the Lahore High Court reported at PLD 2009 Lahore 362, in which sentencing guidelines have been given in respect of various quantities of narcotics, and he pointed out that the recommended sentence for a conviction in respect of the quantity of Charas involved in the present case was only four years and six months. In my view, the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Lahore High Court can usefully serve as a yardstick, since it is obvious that even if the present applicant is ultimately convicted of the offence of possessing 1200 grams of Charas, his sentence can hardly be the maximum punishable for a conviction under section 9(c) or anywhere near that sentence. It is therefore quite probable that, even if convicted, the sentenced ultimately handed down to the bail applicant would be in the region as recommended by the Lahore High Court. Giving the excessive workload on the trial Courts, it is quite possible that by the time the trial is concluded, the period that the bail applicant would have spent in jail would be equal to a substantial portion of the sentence handed down, even if he is ultimately convicted. Taking these factors into consideration, and keeping in mind that there do not appear to be any exceptional or aggravating circumstances in the present case as would disentitle the bail applicant from the grant of bail, I am inclined in the facts and circumstances of the present case to allow this application.
6. Accordingly, I allow this application and admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rs,Fifty thousand only) and executing PR bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to say, the observations made herein are for purposes of this application only, and nothing herein stated shall influence the trial court which shall decide the matter strictly on its own merits in accordance with law.