' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No,1781, dated 18-11-2011, under section 9(c)/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Ghulam Mustafa, SI is that he while heading a contingent of police, conducted a raid, on a spy information, and apprehended accused Muhammad Ashraf, who had a plastic bag, hung against the seat of his motorcycle, which contained 45 packets filled with contraband charas; on weighing, it turned out to be 27 kilograms; he disclosed during interrogation that he was patronized by Abdul Qudoos, constable (petitioner), who had with him an amount of Rs,4,50,000; Abdul Qudoos when reached the spot on a message of Muhammad Ashraf accused, he was overpowered by the police and an amount of Rs,4,50,000 was recovered from him as a result of his physical search.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case under a conspiracy by the inimical Investigating Officer, so as to ruin his career; the involvement of the petitioner is altogether a doubtful circumstance, which smacks dishonesty and foulplay on the part of the police; despite his ill-intentions, the Investigating Officer failed to collect any incriminating evidence against the petitioner, whose case calls for further probe into his guilt and makes it a fit case for grant of the relief prayed for.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab on the other hand opposes by contending that the petitioner is patronin-chief of Muhammad Ashraf accused, who is a notorious drug-peddler; the recovery of Rs, 4,50,000 from the possession of the petitioner amply connects him with his co- accused Muhammad Ashraf and the crime; the petitioner is an abettor, inducer and a facilitator of a dangerous drug-trader, therefore, his case is not separable from that of his co-accused.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that more than one inconsistency, and pitfall can be seen floating across the tenor of the prosecution case rendering it a doubtful circumstance, so far as the implication of the accused-petitioner in the instant case is concerned. Undoubtedly, the F.I.R. Reveals the recovery of Rs,4,50,000 from the possession of the petitioner but it does not disclose as to what this recovery was meant for. It was not alleged by the accused, held at the spot that he had paid the aforesaid amount to the accused/ petitioner, for having purchased narcotics from him. It may be so that presence of such a heavy amount, in the pocket of a police constable caused eyebrow-raising but, without any auxiliary linking evidence, the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a sponsor or a patron of Muhammad Ashraf accused. Even otherwise, there exists no incriminating evidence against the petitioner except for the confessional statement of his co-accused and that too, hazy and ambiguous. The record reveals that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation of this case inefficiently and incompetently. The allegation against the petitioner, as pressed into service by the prosecution, is more hypothetical than being tangible. It is strange that the petitioner is behind the bars since 18-11-2011 and the prosecution case, even as on today, is bereft of any lawful connecting evidence against him. No other option is left but to believe that the petitioner's case constitutes a need for further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.