ALI BAIG, J.---After having been failed in getting bail facility from the court of the learned Special Judge CNSA/ Vacations Sessions Judge Gilgit in case FIR No.42/2019 dated 05-12-2019, registered under Section 9(c), CNSA, 1997 at Police Station Juglote Gilgit, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail.
2. Succinctly, prosecution case as narrated in the FIR is that on spy information regarding trafficking of charas in a car bearing Registration No.NWFP-5248, the police of Police Station Juglote conducted naka at Soniyar Das Bazar Juglote on 05-12-2019. In the meanwhile, the aforesaid vehicle arrived at about 0600 hours and after search of car the police recovered charas weighing 2600 grams from under driver seat in presence of police officials/PWs. The police also separated 10 grams charas from total recovered 2600 grams charas for sending the same to chemical examination for his expert report and sealed the same into parcel. Accordingly, the aforementioned case was registered against the present petitioner/accused and the petitioner was arrested on the spot.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the recovery is false and has been planted by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. have been violated as private witnesses from locality have not been associated in the recovery proceedings. The report of Chemical Examiner is also not available on file; thus, case of the petitioner is one of the further inquiry in contemplation of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that FIR has been lodged by one ASIP in violation of Section 21 of CNSA, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the petitioner/ accused is directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR and huge quantity of 2600 gram charas has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner in presence of marginal witnesses. The learned Deputy Advocate General has further argued that offence under Section 9(c), CNSA, 1997 falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; thus, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the FIR was registered/lodged by one ASIP, namely Hafiz-ur-Rehman, and under the provisions of Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic and Substances Act, 1997, ASIP is not competent to register case against the petitioner/ accused under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of CNSA 1997 nor to search the petitioner/accused. Moreover, FIR was registered on 05-12-2019 and petitioner/ accused was arrested on the same day and a period of more than two months has elapsed but report of Chemical Examiner has not yet been received. Delay in receipt of report of Chemical Examiner has made the case of the petitioner as one of further inquiry.
7. Furthermore, there is no record that the petitioner has remained involved in same nature of cases previously and all the PWs are public officials, therefore, there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
Thus, the petitioner cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite period. It is settled principle of law that bail cannot be withheld as punishment.
8. Result of above discussion is that this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner/accused is released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. File.