ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---Through this application, the applicant seeks bail in FIR No. 17 of 2019 registered with Coast Ghard Uthal, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("the CNS Act, 1997"). Earlier the application filed for the same relief before the learned Special Judge CNS, Lasbela at Hub was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2019. Hence this application.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2019, on the report of complainant Sobedar Arif Mehmood an FIR No.17 of 2019 was lodged with Coast Guard Uthal, alleging therein that on the stated date, place at about 4:50 Al- Asmat Coach was intercepted and same was checked. A person seating at Seat No.19 disclosed his name as Attaullah was searched, resultantly five kilogram narcotics were recovered from his possession, which were taken into possession through vide recovery memos.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the prosecution has failed to collect incriminating material; that despite laps of more than six month none of the witness has been recorded; that the challan of the case has been submitted before the trial court and the applicant is no more required for further investigation; that the applicant was arrested when passenger coach was searched but none from the public has been cited as witness. He therefore prayed for grant of bail. He relied upon a judgment reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 303.
4. Learned Assistant Attorney General-II vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the applicant/accused is involved in a heinous crime and the defence has failed to point out any ill will or grudge on the part of the prosecution, therefore urged for dismissal of the application.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APG and have also gone through the record.
The perusal of record reveals that the accused/ applicant has been nominated in the promptly lodged FIR and the alleged recovery of narcotics was effected from his personal possession. Now adverting to the ground of learned counsel for the applicant that no private person was associated during recovery proceedings, the same has no force in it, because the application of Section 103 Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases has been excluded by Section 25 of CNS Act, 1997. Even otherwise the member of law enforcement agency is competent witness in the eye of law can be credible with veracity unless there exist any mala fide or malice with accused person. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any ill will or enmity on the part of the prosecution with the accused/applicant. The presence of the applicant at the bus stand is also not disputed. The offence under section 9(c) of the CNS Act, is punishable with imprisonment for life or death, which comes within the ambit of prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The case is at initial stage and prosecution is leading its evidence, therefore, at this initial stage of the trial the question of bail cannot be considered. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Afzaal Ahmed v. The State 2003 SCMR 573.
6. Now adverting to the judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel for .the applicant, the same is altogether different from the instant case, where only 500 grams narcotics were recovered but in the instant case five kilograms charas have been recovered.
In view of above observations, as tentative assessment of the evidence reveals that prima-facie sufficient material is available on record to connect the applicant in the commission of non-bailable offence, therefore, we are not inclined to accept this application. Consequently, the application being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Needless to observe that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and same shall not affect the merits of the case at the trial.