1. The above captioned revision petitions has been directed against the order of Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, dated 20.02.2017 through which the bail was declined to him.
2. 2.The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petitions are that on 29.03.2016 at about 11.30 a.m.
3. S.I/S.H.O, lodged a report with Police Station, Mangla that on the same day at about 11.00 a.m. during patrolling was present within the jurisdiction of Police Station Thothal. From reliable source he found a person standing in suspicious condition at the place known Ban road Dhari Choudrian, was apprehended along-with .a blue colour shopping bag, who disclosed his name as Altaf Hussain. Two packets weighing 1250/1250 gram and a packet containing 500 gram Chars was in shopping bag. On search of accused, 100 gram Heroine in while color envelop was also recovered from pocket of his shirt which was seized in presence of Police witnesses. Out of the seized material, 30 gram Chars and 11 gram Heroine was sent for Chemical examination.
4. 3.On this report a case vide F.I.R Illat No, 21/2017 in offences under Section 3/4 and 26 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985 was registered.
5. 4.After arrest, the accused-petitioner, applied for post arrest bail before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, on 16.02.2017, which was declined to him vide impugned order dated 20.02.2016 hence, this revision petition.
6. 5.Raja Mohammad Shafique, the learned counsel for accused-petitioner argued with vehemence that the accused-petitioner is innocent person who has been implicated in a false and fabricated case by S.H.O. Police Station, Thothal Mirpur. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot be convicted on the basis of fictitious recovery. The learned counsel contended that the investigation has been completed and incomplete challan has been submitted before the competent Court of jurisdiction but the accused-petitioner is behind bars for the last one month and he is no more required by the police for further investigation; but the Court below did not consider this aspect of the case and wrongly declined bail to him. The learned Counsel contended that Section 3 of the Prohibition Act is not applicable in the instant case while Section 4 of the Act, is bailable. The learned counsel pointed out that out of alleged recovered Chars and heroin, a meager amount of heroin was sent to chemical analysis, but the report was not brought on record as yet, which makes the prosecution case highly doubtful. The learned Counsel finally prayed for acceptance of revision petition.
7. 6.Conversely, Hafiz Fazal-ur-Rehman Dar, the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in case of recovery of 10 gram or more than 10-grams heroin, the punishment of life imprisonment has been provided under Section 4(2) of the Prohibition Act, 1985, while the accused is a Habitual offender, therefore, his case falls in prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. The learned State Counsel contended that alleged recovery of huge quantity of intoxicant connect the accused-petitioner with the commission of alleged offences. The learned Counsel contended that Court below have exercised their discretion in a judicious and proper manner, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The learned counsel lastly craved for dismissal of the revision petition.
8. 7.I have heard the learned Counsel for accused-petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and have cursorily gone through the record of the case.
9. 8.It is alleged in the FIR that 3, Kg Chars and Heroin weighing 100 gram were recovered from the accused petitioner, the recovery memos. were prepared by the Police in presence of witnesses and out of seized material 30gram Chars and 11 grams Heroine was sent for Chemical examination, therefore, prima facie he is connected with the offence particularly punishment under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of liadd Act) 1985 and according to the Proviso of Section 4 if the quantity of Heroine exceeds 10 grams then the accused can be convicted for life imprisonment.
10. Now, it is to be determined whether in circumstances of the instant case, the accused-petitioner is entitled to be released on bail or not? It is an admitted position that petitioner is accused of the offence which entails maximum sentence of life imprisonment; therefore, the case falls under prohibition contains in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. which provides that "he shall not be so released, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years." A cursory perusal of the record reveals that a large quantity of heroin was recovered from the accused-petitioner and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused-petitioner is prima-facie involved in non-bailable offence, and in such like cases where a large quantity of heroin is recovered from accused, normally bail cannot be granted to him. The aforesaid view is supported from a case reported as Arshad Javed alias Bhola v. The State 11988 PCr.LJ (Lahore) 1267], wherein it has been opined as under: "Since a large quantity of heroin has allegedly been recovered from the petitioner and the offences fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and the learned Counsel has not been able to show reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences, therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage."
9. In light of above discussion, I am not inclined to accept the instant revision petition. The trial Court has exercised its discretion in a judicious manner, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
11. The crux of above discussion is that finding no force in this revision petition, it is hereby dismissed.