' RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO, J.---Through this application, applicant Lal Bux son of Arbab Khan Brohi seeks post arrest bail in Crime No,61 of 2016 of P.S. A-Section Nawabshah for offence punishable under section 9(c ) of CNS Act, 1997, after dismissal of his bail application by the learned Special Judge, Narcotic, Shaheed Benazirabad vide order dated 16.5.2016.
2. Per prosecution case, the allegation against the present applicant/accused is that on 28.4.2016 at 1715 hours, the complainant party, during patrolling, received spy information that the applicant/ accused was openly selling the charas near Salt factory bye pass road, on which complainant party rushed towards pointed place at 1800 hours and saw one person was standing there having plastic bag/theli in his hand, who seeing the police party started running away, but police party succeeded in apprehending the applicant/accused. On his personal search, police recovered pieces of charas, which was lying in the plastic theli, which were weighed and became 1300 grams.
The entire charas was sealed for chemical analysis. The applicant/accused was also shown arrested in Crime No,55/2016 under sections 399, 402, 353, 324, P.P.C. Such joint mashirnama was prepared and thereafter applicant was brought at the police station where FIR was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with mala fide intention; that the charas was foisted upon the applicant/accused; that police also registered the case Crime No,55/2016 under sections 399, 402, 353,. 324, P.P.C. At the same police station; that the case of present applicant/accused is border line case in sections 9(b) and 9(c) of CNS Act and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that there is no apprehension of absconsion of the applicant/ accused or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as all the P.Ws are police officials; that the applicant/accused is neither hardened nor desperate criminal nor previous convict; that the applicant is not previously involved in such type of case; that the case has been challaned and the applicant/accused is behind the bars since his arrest, as such, he is no more required further for the purpose of investigation; that there is inordinate delay of eight days for sending the sample to the chemical analyzer, therefore, in view of above submissions, the case of present applicant/accused is of further inquiry and he may be released on bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Wajid alias Waji v. State (2016 PCr.LJ 831), Ali Hassan alias Hasan v. State (2014 YLR 188), Asif Ali v. State (2013 YLR 1241), Muhammad Hussain v. State (2012 YLR 768).
4. On the other hand, learned D.D.P.P. For the State recorded his no objection on the ground that the case to be of border line between the clauses (b) and (c) of section 9 of CNS Act, 1997, inasmuch as, only 1300 grams of charas has been recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned D.D.P.P for the State and have perused the material available on record with their assistance.
6. It is an admitted position that only 1300 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from the applicant/accused. It has been consistent view of the superior Courts as well as this Court that in cases where recovery of narcotic substance does not exceed the limit between 900 to 1500 grams, the case being of borderline between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, invariably in all eases applicants have been admitted to bail. In this regard, guidance can be taken from the cases of Wajid alias Waji v. State (2016 PCr.LJ 831), All Hassan @ Hasan v. State (2014 YLR 188), Asif Ali v. State (2013 YLR 1241) and Ayaz v. State (2011 PCr.LJ 177), in which cases where the recovery of substance does not exceed the limit between 900 to 1500 grams and it has been held by the superior Courts that the case being of borderline between clauses (b) and (c) of section 9 of CNS Act, 1997 and invariably in all cases applicants have been admitted to bail.
7. It is settled principle of law that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be gone into and only it is to be seen as A to whether applicant is prima facie connected with the commission of offence or not. It is a fact that there is no private person to act as mashir of arrest and recovery and no private witnesses have been associated in the case. Prosecution has not claimed that the present applicant has been previously convicted/involved in the same nature of the case. The applicant is in jail since his arrest and is no more required for any purpose of further investigation, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the applicant/accused is kept in custody for an indefinite period.
8. In view of the above facts, circumstances and the case law cited above, I am of the view that the case of present applicant appears to be borderline case, which attracts the provision of clauses
(b) and (c) of section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997 and the benefit of such discrepancy is to be extended to the present applicant, therefore, the case of applicant is one of further inquiry as contemplated within the definition of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, the applicant namely Lal Bux son of Arbab Khan Brohi is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) and PR bonds in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.