' ATTAULLAH KHAN J.---The petitioner, Shaukat Hussain, is involved in case F.I.R. No,370 dated 2-7- 2010 of Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan under section 9-C, C.N.S.A. He has been refused bail by the court below. Hence this application for the same purpose.
2. On receipt of complaints from the general public about the business of narcotics by the accused/petitioner, Nawab Khan S.H.O. Of Police Station Cantt. D. I. Khan along with police party after search warrant from the Ilaqa/Judicial Magistrate had raided his house who was found present in the room of the house. On seeing the police party, he took a `Gathri' in his hand but was overpowered and when searched, it contained a plastic envelope having heroin wrapped in 48 purries weighing 400 grams. He was thus arrested in the case in hand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the lady constable who was associated with the search has not been examined. He argued that the search warrant was obtained from the Judicial Magistrate who was not authorized. He submitted that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have not been complied with.
4. On the contrary, the learned DAG argued that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender and there are numerous F.I.Rs, against him which all relate to narcotics. He urged that the petitioner was arrested on the spot and the quantity of heroin recovered from his physical possession falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have examined record of the case and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record reveals that the accused/petitioner was apprehended on the spot along with 400 grams heroin in presence of witnesses. The report of sample sent for chemical analysis to the FSL is in positive. The copies of F.I.Rs, No, 424 dated 18-8-2009, F.I.R. No, 503 dated 8-11-2009, F.I.R. No, 35 dated 20-1-2009, F.I.R. No, 360 dated 14-5-2006, F.I.R. No, 347 dated 12-7-2009, F.I.R. No, 128 dated 24-3-2005, F.I.R. No, 210 dated 23-4-2005, F.I.R. No, 346 dated 11-7-2009, F.I.R. No, 675 dated 1-11-2009 and F.I.R. No, 210 dated 23-4-2005 available on file reveal that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender and deals in the business of narcotics. Though in the said cases he has not been convicted, yet it would not make his case arguable for the purposes of bail because the registration of so many cases supports the plea that the petitioner is a habitual offender dealing in the business of narcotics.
7. In sofar as the non-compliance of the provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, it is pointed out that this section has been excluded from the provisions of C.N.S.A. And there is no need of association of any public person with the process of recovery in such-like cases. Besides, the FSL report is in positive.
8. Therefore, the tentative assessm ent of the materials so far brought on record reasonably connect the accused/petitioner with the commission of offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Disentitling him to the concession of bail.
9. Consequently, I am not inclined to admit the accused/petitioner to bail and his prayer for bail is accordingly declined.