1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.-.-Applicants Muhammad Nazeer and Bashir Ahmed both by caste Brohi have moved Criminal Bail Applications Nos.129 and 130 of 2012 which are connected and I intend to dispose of the same by this common order.
2. ' The allegations against the applicants/accused are that on 19-10-2011 at 1230 hours, they were arrested by police at Maldasi Minor Mori during Naka Bandi when both the applicants/accused were coming towards Shandadpur through Maldasi Road in a Toyotta Car. Police enquired from the accused who disclosed their names to be the present applicants. Police recovered from accused Muhammad Nazeer one mobile phone of Nokia 1616, 14 currency notes of Rs,100 total Rs,1400 and 9 pieces of charas weighing 4-1/2 Kgs, out of which police separated 10 grams from each piece for chemical examination. Police also recovered from accused Basheer Ahmed one mobile phone 1112, 11 currency notes of Rs,100 total 1100 and 11 pieces of charas weighing 5-1/2 Kgs, separated 10 grams from each piece for chemical examination. The custody of Car Toyotta Corolla of white colour, bearing Registration No,AVQ-069, Model 2011, No, Y-313128, Chasis No, NZE140- 090166 which was allegedly used by accused was-also taken by police. Thereafter police prepared such mashirnama at the spot and brought the accused and case property at Police Station where two separate F.I.Rs, No,307 and 308 of 2011 were registered against the accused.
3. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants/accused that applicants are innocent and have beeh falsely involved in the case in hand by police due to enmity. It is contended that due to political reasons, the alleged property has been foisted upon the. Applicants. He further contended that though the police had prior information of the incident but they did not take any private person to act as mashir and committed violation of section 22 of C.N.S. Act and section 103, Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel further contended that there is over writing in F.I.R. Regarding the alleged recovery of charas so also in mashirnama regarding the date of incident which makes the case of applicants to be one of further enquiry. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as 1. 2011 M LD 365, 2. 2009 SCM R 954, 3. 2011 SCM R 165.
5. ' On the other hand, learned A.P.G for the State has, vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that accused were arrested at the spot and a huge quantity of charas was recovered from their possession.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.P.G for the State and perused the material available on record with their assistance and also the case-law.
7. Admittedly, the applicants/accused were arrested at the spot and a huge quantity of charas was recovered from their possession. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants that police has involved the applicants due to grudge with Brohi Community and such cases are challaned before the Court of A.T.C. But the learned counsel failed to submit any F.I.R. Or judgment of the A.T.0 whether the present applicants were involved in those cases. Learned counsel has also contended that the applicants are involved due to political reasons , by M.N.A Roshanuddin due to non-casting of votes in A their favour but no documentary proof has been placed on record in this regard. The accused were arrested in the broad day light, their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. The recovery of 09 slabs of narcotics containing 4-1/2 Kgs. From accused Muhammad Nazeer was effected and from each slab a small quantity was separated and was sent for chemical examination whereas from accused Basheer Ahmed 11 slabs containing 5-1/2 Kgs. Narcotics was recovered and from that too samples from each slab were taken out and sent to Chemical Examiner. Learned counsel has also failed to explain that due to enmity with police how a huge quantity of narcotics can be foisted upon the accused. As regards the contention of learned counsel that there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C, the said section has been excluded by section 25 of C.N.S Act as under the said provision, it is not necessary in the narcotics cases that some private persons may be associated in the recovery proceedings and it is well-settled law that evidence of a police official is as good as that of a private person unless there exists enmity with the police. I have also gone through the case-law relied upon by learned counsel but the facts and circumstances of the case-law are quite distinguishable from the case in hand. Even otherwise the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused have failed to make out a case for further enquiry. As regards the discrepancy in the name of applicant Bashir Ahmed is concerned, that point can be determined by the trial Court while recording the evidence.
8. ' In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that no case for grant of bail is made hence the instant bail application is dismissed. However, before parting with the order I direct the trial Court to examine the material witnesses i,e, complainant and two mashirs within two months from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, the applicants are at liberty to move bail application if they are so advised. The compliance report should be submitted to this Court through Additional Registrar of this Court.