' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Applicant is booked in Crime No,100 of 2011 under section 9(c) of C.N.S Act, 1997 at P.S B-Section, Dadu.
2. In the first place, applicant applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Dadu who dismissed the bail application per order dated . 3-8-2011 and against the aforesaid order, present bail application has been filed.
3. The facts as set out in the F.I.R are that complainant A.S.-I. Ali Asghar Panhwar who being Incharge of P.S. B-Section, stated that present applicant was booked in Crime No,99 of 2011 under section 411, 34, P.P.C. At the same police station and after arrest of the present applicant, his personal search was made and 2 Kgs of charas in 04 pieces was recovered from the applicant and 10 grams from whole of the recovered substance were separated for chemical examination.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of bail application has submitted that present applicant has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case as he has previous enmity and both belong to caste Panhwar. He says that perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that names of the mashirs in whose presence alleged recovery was effected are not mentioned. He further says that other prosecution witnesses who recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C, their presence is not shown in the F.I.R. He further says that another F.I.R. No,99 of 2011 as aforesaid was registered at the same police station and in such crime, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dadu on 28-7-2011. Learned counsel for the applicant says that statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Are entirely different than the contents of F.I.R. He submitted that it appears that subsequently the prosecution witnesses gave their statements to the complainant to improve the case of prosecution though they were not present at the scene of occurrence. He further says that though none of the mashirs were shown in the F.I.R. But in the mashirnama A.S.-I. Khair Muhammad and A.S.-I. Jurio have signed the same showing the alleged recovery from the present applicant. Learned counsel says that case of the prosecution is doubtful and this case requires further enquiry.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. Has stated his no objection to the grant of bail in the circumstances of the case. Learned A.P.-G. Has tried his level best to locate some material from the police papers which may connect the present applicant/accused with the commission of offence but since none was found, he has stated his no objection.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The tentative assessm ent of the record shows that names of the mashirs does not appear in the F.I.R. It further appears that as per prosecution case 04 pieces of charas were allegedly recovered from the applicant but as per prosecution witnesses sample was not drawn from each of the piece of charas allegedly recovered from the applicant. Names of the mashirs do not appear in the F.I.R.
So also the presence of any prosecution witness is not shown in the F.I.R. In the circumstances, this case is not free from doubts. False implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out in the circumstances of the case. This case requires further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.