' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The applicant has applied for post-arrest bail in Crime No,111 of 2011, lodged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station A- Section Sukkur.
2. Succinctly, the facts forming the background of the case are that on 19-6-2011, SIP Bashir Ahmed Jagirani, Incharge Zonal Task Force Newpind Sukkur lodged the F.I.R that he along with other police officials was on patrolling within jurisdiction of Sub-Division City. During patrolling when they reached at United Bakery New Goth, Sukkur they received spy information that one Saleh alias Saloo son of Loung Manganhar, resident of Jamali Mohallah, Military Road, Sukkur is a narcotics dealer and he is standing at Adam Shah Takri for handing over 'Charas' to someone. On receiving this" information, a person namely Saleh alias Saloo son of Loung Manganhar resident of Jamali Mohalla Military Road, Sukkur was found there. He had a blue plastic bag. When he saw the police party in uniform, he threw the blue plastic bag and started running. The complainant and other officials immediately stopped motorcycles and tried to capture him, but he escaped. Since it was about 1610 hours, therefore, no private mashirs were available on the spot, hence, HC Sultan Ahmed and HC Muhammad Ali were appointed as mashirs. Police seized blue coloured bag containing slabs of 'Charas', wrapped in plastic. The slabs were counted as eight in number and each slab was of 1 K.G. Out of the same, two slabs weighing 2 kgs. Were sealed separately for chemical examination. Remaining charas of 6 Kgs. Was sealed separately. Since the accused Saleh alias Saloo Manganhar kept contraband narcotics/charas for sale, he has committed an offence under section 9(c), C.N.S. Act.
3. After usual investigation, police by showing the applicant asabsconder has submitted the challan and court issued his NBW. The applicant was allowed protective bail by this court for seven days. Thereafter, the applicant had moved pre-arrest bail. The interim pre-arrest bail was granted to applicant/accused. However, vide order dated 19-8-2011, the bail application was' dismissed by the Special Judge C.N.S., Sukkur, thereafter, his bail application for post-arrest bail was also dismissed vide order dated 29-8-2011.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity with his master Amanullah Khan. He further argued that master Amanullah Khan has been falsely implicated in murder case of his three cousins and police exerted pressure on the applicant to provide the addresses of accused persons nominated in the above case and since the applicant shown his inability to their whereabouts, therefore, he has been implicated in the present case. The learned counsel further argued that the contraband material/charas had not been recovered from the physical possession of the applicant and while rejecting the bail application, the trial Court has not considered the crucial question regarding the recovery of charas. In the F.I.R., police has completely failed to disclose as how they have identified the applicant with his parentage. No independent witness was associated and there is no eye-witness of the alleged offence, except the police official and since no charas was recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, this is a case of further inquiry. Police has already submitted Challan and the applicant is no more required for any further investigation.
5. Conversely, the learned APG argued that the case against the present applicant has been registered on spy information. The applicant is a charas dealer. He further argued that no bail can be granted to the applicant keeping in view section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and since the applicant is involved in a heinous crime, which is injurious to the society, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. The allegation against the present applicant per F.I.R. Is that oil 19-6-2011, the complainant, while patrolling, received spy information that the applicant is a narcotic dealer, who is standing at Adam Shah Tekri for delivery of charas to someone and when they reached at that place the applicant was found standing there with blue plastic bag and when he saw complainant/police party, he threw the bag and escaped. According to the prosecution the complainant and other police officials stopped their motorcycle and tried to capture the complainant, but he escaped towards west side. They seized blue color bag, and found 8 kgs. Charas.
7. It is clear from the contents of the F.I.R. That though the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R.
On the basis of alleged spy information but it is also a matter of record that nothing was recovered from him on the spot, rather, it has been stated that the applicant escaped away from the place of incident and after his disappearance a blue colour bag was found from the spot containing the contraband material. It is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. As to how the applicant was identified by the police with parentage. Since the applicant was not apprehended on the spot, charas was also not recovered from his possession, therefore, at this stage, it is a case of further inquiry as to whether the applicant is involved in the crime and or contravened the provision of sections 6 and 7 or section 8 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or not. So far as section 51 of the C.N.S. Act, 1997 is concerned, it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the court can in appropriate cases has the power to grant bail despite embargo contained under section 51 of the aforesaid Act. One cannot be kept in custody on the basis of mere suspicion. The quantity of the contraband material can be given importance only when the same is linked with the applicant by cogent evidence. The bar contained under section 51 is attracted only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the alleged offence. Reference can be made to 2007 PCr.LJ 89 and 2007 PCr.LJ 896.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the tentative view that this is a case of further inquiry and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is involved in the above crime. Consequently, the applicant is released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum ofRs,300,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.