Petitioner , Abid Ali, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 154 dated 29.04.2020 registered under Section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Rajoa, District Chiniot, on the allegation that petitioner was apprehended with 1300 grams contained in two pieces weighing 1000 grams and 300 grams whereas 50 grams was taken from the bigger piece and 50 grams from the smaller piece and sent for chemical analysis along with sale proceed Rs. 2000/-, hence this FIR.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner , learned APG and perusing the record, it is noteworthy that earlier Crl. Misc. No. 29954- B of 2020 was filed for the grant of post arrest bail which was not pressed while issuing direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of 3 months vide order dated 14.07.2020. It is for this reason that a report was requisitioned from the learned trial Court who informed that the case was entrusted to the Court on 05.10.2020 and the copies under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. were delivered on the same date and the charge was framed on 12.10.2020 and the prosecution evidence was summoned for 26.10.2020. On 26.10.2020 no prosecution witness was present, on 11.11.2020 the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and on 26.11.2020 Saqlain Abbas, Akmal Shahbaz, Irfan and Ahsan Munir/Constables were present but the lawyers , were observing strike and, therefore, the case had to be adjourned for 17.12.2020. On 17.12.2020, the complete set of witnesses was not present and the case was adjourned to 18.12.2020 when all three PWs were present but the learned defence counsel sought an adjournment. Again on 07.01.2021 lawyers observed strike. On 21.01.2021 lawyers observed strike though Ghulam Muhammad/ASI was present but the defence sought an adjournment as the complete set of witnesses was not present. On 11.02.2021 and 18.02.2021 lawyers observed strike. On 08.03.2021 all three prosecution witnesses were present but the defence side sought an adjournment and on 29.03.2021 examination-in-Chief of Ghulam Muhammad and Akmal Shahbaz, was recorded as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively , but the defence sought an adjournment. On 01.04.2021 PWs could not appear . On 08.04.2021 lawyers observed strike and on 10.05.2021 holidays of Eid-ul-Fitr were there but again on 17.05.2021 the accused could not be produced from jail and on 28.05.2021 the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. Perusal of the above report reveals that, defence was not very much interested in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses since 3/4 adjournments were sought by accused. The learned trial Court has, therefore, sought 3 months further time.
5. On the other hand, learned Addl. Prosecutor General, has referred to a judgment reported as Bilal Khan versus The State (2021 SCMR 460), to argue that Supreme- Court has now taken a view that contraband exceeding 1200 grams attracts Section 51 of CNSA of 1997. However , in the said judgment, the accused had spent just 3/4 months behind the bars and the recovered contraband was amphetamine/Ice which was considered as lethal contraband. - However , in the present case, the petitioner has spent more than a year behind the bars during which a direction issued by this Court though remained affective as the case was adjourned for short dates yet the result is that on account of Covid-19 and the observance of strikes by the Bar , the trial could not be concluded.
6. It is not a case in which direction was violated but a case in which the trial could not be concluded beyond the act on the part of r the accused and, therefore, by now instead of three months more than about 101/2 months have passed.
7. It is a case in which case titled Saeed Ahmed versus. State through P.G. Punjab and another reported as (PLJ 2018 SC 812) can be applied wherein the bail was granted for the recovery of 1350 grams chars. Besides, it is not a case of violation of direction as already stated particularly when the earlier bail petition was dismissed not even on merits and without arguing the same at length.
8. In this view of the matter , this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.