' Mr. Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate has submitted his Wakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner by contending that the original counsel hails from Faisalabad, who is not available today, but he has authorized him to represent the petitioner, who seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,1212, dated.
22-10-2012, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he possessed 4.360 kilograms narcotic-Bhikki, when arrested by the police on 22-10-2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that story mentioned in the F.I.R. Does not inspire confidence as a daughter cannot be expected in our society to deliver contraband substance to her father to sell it; it was a populated area wherefrom the petitioner was taken into custody and absence of evidence by a local inhabitant renders the story of F.I.R. Doubtful; the petitioner is aged 70, who has no previous criminal record, therefore, he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab opposes by contending that the petitioner possessed huge quantity of narcotic, when taken into custody; the report of the Chemical Examiner is positive; the petitioner's case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; lastly submits that a prosecution witness has already been recorded by the learned trial Court and trial of the accused may be decided in near future.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that Muhammad Anwar, S.-I. (complainant) as per contents of the F.I.R. Segregated an amount of thirty grams from the bulk for chemical analysis, but report received from the office of Chemical Examiner reveals that the parcel-analyzed contained 250 grams Bhikki, which sharply negates aforesaid aspect of the prosecution case. The complainant appears to have toyed with the parcel of the recovered substance by fetching another sample therefrom on 26-10-2012, but how and in whose presence he did so, is not supported by any evidence, rather he (complainant) belatedly recorded his own supplementary statement to cover up the said lacuna, which too shows an interpolation. Whether or not, the petitioner possessed a narcotic substance, as alleged in the F.I.R., can only be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties at trial.
There exist sufficient reasons at this stage to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt, within the meaning of 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 two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.