MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner has been booked for the offence under section 9(c) CNSA, 1997 vide FIR No.05/2019 dated 30-01-2019 registered at Police Station Jutial Gilgit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the local police received spy information regarding presence of the petitioner near GB Scouts petrol Pump, who was spotted there and on search of his bag, charas weighing 4 kg was recovered from his possession. The I.O. of the case separated 50 gram of charas , from the whole stuff and after preparation of recovery memo. lodged the instant FIR.
3. Post arrest bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned special Judge Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 27- 02-2019, hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery is false and fictitious as no independent witnesses have been cited in the recovery proceeding. Only 50 grams of charas have been sent to chemical expert for expert opinion and the samples have not been drawn for each and every packet. There is a delay of about 1 hour in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained by the prosecution. The complainant himself investigated the case, which is a mockery in the eyes of law. Per learned counsel the petitioner is a minor and his case also falls under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is first offender and no more required for the purpose of investigation.
The case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.
5. The learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner/accused was caught red handed and a huge quantity of charas was recovered from his possession. The learned Dy. Advocate General further submitted that 4 kg charas was recovered in bulk and it was not in packets, therefore, the question of taking of the samples from each and every packet does not arise. Lastly submitted that the people of Kohistan are selling the narcotics in Gilgit-Baltistan, which is effecting whole the society . The offence entails capital punishment and the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. We heard the arguments of both the parties at length. The petitioner was caught red handed on a tip-of f information and 4 Kg of charas was recovered from his possession in presence of two marginal witnesses of recovery memo, one of them is an independent private witness. No doubt that complainant himself carried out investigation Of A the case, but it will not make any difference as there is no provision in either Cr.P.C. or in Control of. Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 that a Police Officer, who is complainant of the case cannot investigate the case.
Reliance is place on PLD 1997 SC 408. I.O. of the separated 50 grams of charas from 4 packets of Charas (each packet was of 1 (one) Kg) but separated 50 grams of Charas for chemical examiner , which despite our repeated queries from the learned Dy. Advocate General, could not be reconciled. It is not discernable from the record that how much quantity was taken from each packet. If the samples taken B would have been 40 grams in total then it was easy to presume that 10 grams were taken from each packet but taking of 50 grams from 4 packets is a question which could be answered by the prosecution at the time of trial and has created a doubt in our mind bringing the case within the preview of further inquiry .
7. The case of the petitioner has been one of the further inquiry . The petition, is allowed, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond s of 10,00000 (ten lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court at Gilgit.