' Petitioner Liaquat Ali son of Mukhtar Ahmed seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.60/2013 dated 22-3-2013 for offence under sections 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Saddar Yazman.
2. According to the prosecution story as narrated in the Crime Report is that on 26-2-2013 Liqat Ali and Muhammad Akhtar alias Rola hired Suzuki Pick Up at the rate of Rs.1300 for the purpose of transportation of passengers; that both the accused kept a gift pack in front of Wagon; that when they reached Talewal bridge, Police Patrolling Party checked the vehicle; that the police party found gift pack which was lying in the Wagon; that "Charas" was found in that packet; that both the accused fled away from the scene. Hence this F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Rapat No.5 of Police Patrolling Party of Talewala bridge dated 26-2-2013; that the van of the complainant was checked by the raiding party and recovered 1240 grams "Charas"; that Rapat No.7 further corroborates the stance taken by the petitioner; that during investigation in fact contraband was recovered from the van of Muhammad Irfan complainant and shifted his liability towards the petitioner and a false case has been registered against the present petitioner with mala fide intention and to safe his skin, as his real brother is an A.S.-I. In Police at Bahawalpur. He further contends that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that even the weight of the contraband mentioned in the F.I.R. Is 1100-grams "Charas" and Rapat Nos.5 and 7 shows that 1240-grams. Adds that the case against the petitioner is false and there is delay of twenty four days in lodging the F.I.R. Without any explanation. Further adds that the registration of case on the statement of Muhammad Irfan complainant by itself is not permissible if any raid was conducted.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the bail petition by stating that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R.; that specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and a heavy quantity of narcotic belonging to him has been recovered.
5. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Interestingly, the alleged occurrence took place on 26-2-2013 when the police party searched the van of the complainant in his presence and during the said search, recovered Charas from the possession of the complainant after which the police was legally bound to register a criminal case against the complainant but the needful was not done but rather on 22-3-2013 F.I.R. Was lodged against the petitioner after a delay of approximately 24-days which is altogether unexplained and another co-accused on the application of the complainant which act on the part of the police cannot be digested by a sane mind. The prosecution as per record has put forward two stances, firstly, 1240 grams of Charas was recovered from the secret cavity of the van, secondly, 1100 grams Charas was recovered. Admittedly the contraband was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Complainant is the real brother of one Muhammad Aslam A.S.-I. With whom the petitioner has strained relations, in this backdrop mala fides on the part of the complainant cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is no more required by the prosecution side for any further investigation and recovery. In the given circumstances, the case of the petitioner is a fit one for the grant of pre- arrest bail in this case. We are conscious of the fact that in ordinary cases accused persons under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 do not deserve the right for the grant of pre-arrest bail but the facts of each and every case are to be seen independently. Therefore, pre- arrest bail granted to the petitioner in this case vide order dated 20-5-2013 is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the reasons given in this order are tentative in nature and it will have no effect upon the merits of the case in accordance with law.