FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through instant petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C, petitioner (Muhammad Isfahan alias Kaka) seeks post arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 427, dated 05.07.2020, registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad.
2. The allegations, set-forth in the F.I.R, are that on 05.07.2020, at about 04:10 pm near U-turn Tarnol Railway Crossing, C.I.A Staff intercepted the petitioner with a blue colour shopper and on its search, two littars of charas weighing 2035 grams were recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that C.I.A is not competent to conduct investigation without due permission; that fake recovery has been planted against the petitioner who retains no criminal record, therefore, entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel relied upon case laws reported as PLD 1997 SC 408, 2018 PCr.L.J 590 Lahore, 2001 YLR 948 Karachi and PLD 1995 Lahore 606 .
4. Conversely , learned State Counsel contends that the petitioner was caught red handed while in possession of 2035 grams charas and that trial of the subject case is in progress, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner was apprehended by C.I.A staff and thereafter F.I.R was registered in Police Station Tarnol wherein it is mentioned that permission to conduct investigation is being sought from the concerned authorities. When confronte d, the Investigating Officer remained unable to point out any such permission in black and white on record.
7. It is by now well settled that the C.I.A Staff is not competent to investigate and process the case, while under the law they are required to inform the conc erned police station for further progress of the matter . In this respect, reliance is placed on "Naseer Ahmad v . The State" [ 2020 MLD 282 (Sindh)] wherein it has been held as under:- "(h) The DPG has call investigation officer of the case, who is also complainant. The DPG after consulting the investigation officer SIP Roshan Ali informs that C.I.A Centre is not a police station and investigation was not assigned to him by the SSP or DIG.
(i) Since, the complainant is not the Officer Incharge of Police Station nor he belongs to the said Police Station where FIR is lodged; therefore, the investigation cannot be assigned to him, as per provision of Rule 25.1 of Police Rule 1934.
(j), (k) ........
(l) It is not proper for police officer , who is complainant, to investigate the case, as a case reported as State v Bashir Ahmed and others PLD 1997 Supreme Court 408 , wherein it held as:- "It could hardly be expected that a police officer , who is heading a raiding party and is a witness, also becomes the complainant and loges an FIR against the accused, ,and then becoming an Investigation Officer of the same case, will comply with the aforesaid Police Rule. In the circumstances, the practice of the seizing officer or the head of a police party who is also a witness to the crime becoming or being nominated as an Investigating Officer of the same case should be avoided and if any other competent officer is available in the police station, he may be nominated as the Investigating Officer rather than the head of the Police Party . As observed, Investigating Officer is an important witness for the defence also and in case the head of the police party also becomes the Investigating Officer , he may not be able to discharge his duties as required of him under the Police Rules."
8. In another judgment reported as "Rashid Hussain v. The State" (2018 P.Cr.L.J. 590), the Hon'ble Lahore High held as under:- "The above provision does not include C.I.A. personnel, therefore, they have no power to investigate a cognizable offence and the investigation so conducted by Nasir Mehmood S.I. of C.I.A. Staff was illegal. We have fortified our view from the dictum laid down by this Court in "Iftikhar Ahmad alias Dani V. the State (PLD 1995 Lahore 606), wherein it has been held as under:- "The members of the C.I.A Staff are subordinates of the Superintendent of Police of the District which S.P. has the powers of an Officer -in-Charge of a police station in view of the provisions of section 551 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the members of the C.I.A Staff, irrespective of their rank and status, can investigate, cases only when they have been entrusted to them by an Officer -in-Charge of the Police Station to whom they are subordinate i.e. in case of C.I.A Staff, the S.P. of the District. Therefore, no member of the CIA Staff has any authority or power to investigate a case of their own motion in the absence of such an investigation having been entrusted to him by the S.P. of the District as abovementioned."
9. From above, it has become crystal clear that the investigation in the subject F.I.R was conducted by the C.I.A Staff, which is not warranted under the Police Rules as well as the dictums laid down by the superior courts of the country . In this view of the matter , case of the petitioner has become one of the further inquiry .
10. In addition, it is an admitted position that petitioner retains no criminal record, this fact also extends benefit to him. He is behind the bars since his arrest i.e. 05.07.2020 (nine months) and there is no chance that trial will be concluded in coming future days.
11. In line with above discussion/findings, tentative assessment of the available record guides to hold that under the statutory provision, C.I.A Staff figure nowhere, who in the case in hand not only registered the case but proceeded further with the matter withou t any written permission from concerned police authorities, petitioner is behinds the bars for more than 9 months and there is no chance that trial will be concluded in coming future days, petitioner has no criminal record, hence case for grant of post arrest bail is made out.
12. For what has been discussed above, instant bail petition is allowed , petitioner (Muhammad Isfahan alias Kaka) is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
13. Needless to mention that this is tentative assessment for the purpose of this petition only, which shall not affect/influence the trial of this case in any manner .