' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,418, dated 7-10-2011, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Saddar Chiniot, on the complaint of Zafar Ali, SI.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she possessed 1225 grams heroin at the time of her arrest on 7-10-2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant Zafar Ali, SI/Inv. Is personally inimical to the petitioner and other members of her family, in the backdrop of case F.I.R. No,428, dated 19-7-2010, under sections 302, 324, 10, 337-F(i)/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Langrana, District Chiniot, against Muhammad Shafique and others, who belonged to the same caste, like the above-said Investigating Officer hailed from, who under the garb of the instant false case and another equally baseless case of identical nature, registered against the mother of the petitioner Ms. Irshad Bibi, hatched upon a conspiracy to refrain her from rendering the evidence in case F.I.R. No,428 of 2010 (supra), whereof she is the complainant; the allegation against the petitioner is patently false and she has been targeted by Zafar Ali, SI (complainant) under a conspiracy, so as to save his cronies from the consequences of a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
4. On the other hand; learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab opposes with the contention that the petitioner is a daredevil, who despite being a female, possessed huge quantity of heroin, vvhen apprehended by the police.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner was arrested on 7-10-2011 being in possession of heroin weighing 1225 grams. Zafar Ali, SI/Inv. (complainant) appears to be moving on the course of enmity against the petitioner and her other family members, including her mother, who is the complainant of case F.I.R. No,428 of 2010 (supra) against accused Muhammad Shafique and others, who allegedly came from the same tribe, like that of the above-said Investigating Officer. The probability cannot be ruled out that the commonness of the caste, as hinted at above, might have prompted the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case so as to pressurize her mother, Mst. Irshad Bibi, not to depose against the accused of the mentioned murder case. The facts surrounding the case of the petitioner are startling and almost every bit of it is in similitude with the contents of F.I.R. No,417 of 2011, dated 7-10-2011, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act', 1997, registered at Police Station Saddar Chiniot against her mother for the alleged recovery of heroin weighing 1220 grams, which pertains to an occurrence, alleged to have taken place at 2-00 a.m. On 7-10-2011 in the area of Chak No,127/GB, More Bhattiwala, exactly 1-1/2 hour before the alleged occurrence, the petitioner is an accused of, with the place of occurrence astoundingly being the same. The Investigating Officer appears to have run out of senses for having involved the petitioner and her mother in two dubious cases. It will not be out of place to mention here that Mst. Irshad Bibi was acquitted of the charge in the above-said case vide judgment dated 19-1-2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. The outcome of the case of the petitioner may not be different either but her trial has not concluded so far. The petitioner is behind the bars for a period about eight months and conclusion of her trial, still a remote probability. No evidence exists to believe that she has any previous criminal antecedents. Further incarceration of the petitioner may be of no consequence to the prosecution case for the reason that she after submission of report under B section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been facing the rigors of the trial for many months. Sufficient reasons exist to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into her guilt as contemplated under 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 lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.