MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Petitioner, who is involved for the offences of sections 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, booked through FIR No.5 of 2015 of Police Station Singul Ghizer, seeks his release on bail, through this petition. Previously, petitioner sought similar facility from the court of Judge Anti-Narcotics/Sessions Judge Ghizer, through B.A. No.21/15, who, through his order dated 26-05-2015, 'refused to grant the same facility. Further prior to the said order of Judge Anti- Narcotics/Sessions Judge Ghizer, petitioner and his co-accused, Samiullah, filed a petition (Bail Petition No.15/15) before the Judicial Magistrate Punial/Ishkoman, who through his order dated 18- 05-2015, rejected the same.
2. Brief background of prosecution story of occurrence, disclosed in the FIR is that police of Police Station Singul Ghizer, received spy information that huge quantity of opium is being transported to Ghizer and police of police Station Singul blocked the road in front of the Police Station Singul Ghizer for stopping such transportation. Police checked all suspicious vehicles plying on the road.
At about 6:10pm, an NCP Car No.DMR-1066, which was being driven by accused Samiullah, reached and on checking the same police recovered opium weighing 3950 grams from the spare tyre of the said vehicle. After preliminary proceedings, police arrested petitioner, his co-accused Samiullah and Inamul Haq. All the said three accused were on board the said vehicle. Later on, police released accused Inamul Hag under section 169 Cr.P.C. And submitted challan for trial of the remaining two accused, including petitioner. Initially, the offence of section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA), was also leveled against all the three accused but later on police of Police' Station Singul, for reasons better known to them, expunged section 9-C of CNSA 1997.
3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by the said learned counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the case. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General was of the opinion that at this stage of the case, there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting petitioner for the alleged offences.
4. We have gone through the file on our own and have perused the relevant law. In the case in hand, the quantity of the narcotics, allegedly attempted to transport to an unknown place, is very important. The quantity of the opium is 3950 grams which is huge because law provides harsher punishment for trafficking of narcotics up to 1000 grams or upwards. For ready reference, we reproduce section 9-C of CNSA 1997, which goes as under:--
9. Punishment for contravention sections 6, 7 and 8. - - - Whoever contravenes the provisions of Sections 6, 7 or 8 shall be punishable with:--- imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds one hundred grams but does not exceed one kilogram; and death or imprisonment of life or imprisonment for a term which may be extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine which may be upto one million rupees, if the quantity of the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance exceeds the limits specified in clause (b).
' Moreover, another aspect of the case is the involvement of three accused in the case and then release of one of the said accused by the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. Is really very astonishing.
A minute perusal of police story of the occurrence shows that police has prepared the case in the light of what the accused stated before police and the learned court of Judicial Magistrate as well as the court of Anti-Narcotics/ Sessions Judge Ghizer accepted what the police presented ,before them. In our opinion, the learned Judge Anti Narcotics/Sessions Judge ignored his duty of administering justice in accordance with the circumstances of the case in hand. Per prosecution story of occurrence, petitioner booked the vehicle allegedly used for transportation of the narcotics, while the other two accused are related to each other. So the prima facie perusal of police story of occurrence, at least prima facie shows that all the three accused are involved in the occurrence.
Both the learned courts of Judicial Magistrate and learned Judge of Anti-Narcotics did not apply their judicious mind to the circumstances of the case and have so far acted as ipse dixit of police.
In our opinion, release of Inamul Haq, one of the co-accused of petitioner under section 169, Cr.P.C.
Is wrong, at least at this stage of the case. Per prosecution story of occurrence, the narcotics allegedly attempted to be transported was concealed in a spare tyre called stepney of the vehicle.
5. At this stage of the case, instead of going through the prosecution evidence thoroughly, we prefer to summarily assess the same as well as the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is not disputed that the two laws, i.e., Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) and Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, are the laws defining the offences pertaining to narcotics trafficking and providing the punishment for such offences. The law of CNSA 1997 provides harsher punishment for the offences of trafficking narcotics as compared to the punishments for similar offences provided in the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. As in the case in hand, the quantity of narcotics is huge, therefore, in our opinion, the investigation of the case must have been conducted by the Anti-Narcotics Force. Obviously, conducting investigation of a narcotics trafficking case is never sweet discretion of the police of any police station. The laws of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) are special laws, and in our opinion, the learned court of Judge of Anti-Narcotics/Sessions Judge must interfere where he prima facie saw that the investigation of such cases by the ordinary police station will amount to encouraging the narcotics trafficking.
6. We, therefore, dismiss this petition and direct the learned court of Judge Anti-Narcotics/Sessions Judge Ghizer for returning or passing further directions for returning the challan of case to the Director or Assistant Director Anti-Narcotics Force for re investigation of the case and re submission of challan by said force in the court concerne. This file be consigned to record.