'ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Petitioner Zar Muhammad, who is charged in a case registered against him under section 9, C.N.S.A., vide F.I.R. No,607, dated 8-12-2011 in the Police Station Sarband, District Peshawar, has asked for his release on bail mainly on the grounds that nothing has been recovered from his possession; that there is nothing on record to show that either he is owner, conductor or driver of the abandoned truck wherefrom narcotics have been recovered; that the accused/petitioner was arrested after 12 days of the registration of the F.I.R. Because he was nominated in the case; that on spy information, he has been implicated in the case; that no identification parade has been conducted in the case to prove guilt of the petitioner.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State by opposing the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner contended that a huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the abandoned truck which as per police informer was owned by the petitioner and that the FSL report to this effect also supports the prosecution version qua recovery of narcotics and that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of bail can properly be addressed and thrashed out at the trial stage.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Perusal of the F.I.R. Discloses that the police party on receiving information about parking of an abandoned truck on the spot, reached there and found the information correct. On receipt of no response from the nearby people about its ownership, the police party summoned the Bomb Disposal Squad for checking the truck. During checking, 200 packets of charas of one Kg. Each (200 kgs. In toto), were recovered from the truck. Nobody was nominated as culprit in the case. At the end of the F.I.R, it has been mentioned that the police informer has informed that the truck in question and the contraband were owned by the petitioner who is resident of Afghanistan.
Thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 20-12-2011 i,e, after 12 days of the registration of the after going through the entire record I came across nothing to find out as to who has witnessed the accused/petitioner with the truck in question or the contraband recovered from it. There is mere information given by the police informer without any cogent proof qua involvement of the accused petitioner. It is yet to be brought on record whether the accused/petitioner was driving the truck or he is owner of the said truck. There is also nothing on record that the contraband was recovered from his position. The record itself discloses that the contraband was recovered from the abandoned truck. Regarding non-recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused/petitioner, this court in the case of 2001 PCr.LJ 1756 has already held as under:-- "I have been persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the reasons firstly, there is no direct or indirect piece of evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. She was neither arrested from the spot nor any contraband was recovered from her possession. The only material on which the prosecution has placed reliance is statement of co-accused Mst. Maryam recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. During the investigation which was inadmissible in evidence.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the State v. Syed Abdul Qayyum 2001 SCM R 14."
' A similar principle was laid down by this court in the case reported as 2006 M LD 154. In nutshell, no evidence is available at present to connect the petitioner with the contraband recovered from the abandoned truck and he has been roped in merely on the information of the informer of the police without any substance. The recovery of a huge quantity of contraband from the abandoned truck and not from the possession of the petitioner, his arrest after 12 days of the registration of the case.
And non-conduct of identification parade qua guilt of the petitioner are the reasons tilting in favour of grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, Two lac, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who shall see that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.