The petitioner/Muhammad Naeem seeks his post arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 15/2007, dated 5.6.2007, registered in Police Station Phool Nagar District Kasur under Sections 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997.
2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that when the police party apprehended Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Saleem who are co-accused of the present petitioner, they were found to be in possession of 2-1/2. K.G "charas". On interrogation the said accused/Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Saleem informed the raiding party that they have purchased the contraband substance from one Muhammad Naeem son of Rehmat Ali.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He explained that name of father of the petitioner is Khurshid whereas one Muhammad Naeem son of Rehmat Ali was implicated in the FIR. He further submitted that the disclosure of co-accused regarding the commission of the offence by the present petitioner has no legal value. He maintained that no narcotics substance was recovered from the petitioner. Lastly he contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since 22.3.2011 and no more required for any purpose and entitled to be released on bail being a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposed the instant bail petition on the ground that co-accused of the petitioner stated before the police that they purchased the "charas" from the petitioner. He further submitted that the punishment of offence alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 51(1) CNSA.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that the co-accused Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Khalid informed the police that they had purchased the charas from the present petitioner but there is no direct evidence against the present petitioner that he sold the contraband to the co-accused and as such the involvement of the present petitioner in this case is not only doubtful but also require further inquiry. Needless to mention here that benefit of doubt is to be given to on accused even at bail stage. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 21.3.2011, he remained on physical remand but nothing was recovered from him. The petitioner is no more required for further investigation or any recovery. His further detention in jail would not serve any useful purpose. A post arrest bail cannot be refused to an accused as measure of advance punishment. The petitioner has no previous history of being involved in such like cases. Hence, it is a fit case for the grant of bail to the present petitioner.
7. As a result of above discussion, the instant post arrest bail petition, filed by Muhammad Naeem is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to submission of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.