NAZAR AKBAR, J.----Through instant bail application, applicant/accused Amjad Khan son of Badshah Jan, seeks bail after arrest in FIR No.27/2018 , under section 9-C, C.N.S Act, 1997 registered at police station Madina Colon y, Karachi.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 28.01.2018 at 1330 hours: ASI- Muhammad Shabir complainant of P.S Madina Colony along with his staff during patrolling reached at Hub River Road, near Town Office, Baldia Town, Karachi and on the pointation of spy apprehended above named accused and from his possession recovered polythene bag containing 2200 grams charas. After observing required formalities on the spot the accused along with recovered charas was brought at P .S where FIR was lodged.
3. The applicant/accused approached the learned Special Court-1 (CNS) Karachi for post arrest bail, which was declined vide Order dated 29.03.2018. Thereafter , the applicant approached this Court for grant of post arrest bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant/accused is innocent and falsely implicated in this case and accused was arrested along with his relative when he was returning. back from Jummah prayer and falsely booked in this case due to non-fulfillment of illegal demand. It is further averred that area from which applicant was arrested thickly populated area but police has failed to cite any independent witness and all the witnesses are police officials and as such it is violation of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel contends that accused may kindly be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following case laws reported as:- i. Subhan Khan v . The State ( 2002 SCMR 1979 ). ii. Sardar Amjad Ali Khan v . The State ( 2009 SCMR 425 ) iii. Rahib Ali v. The State ( 2010 YLR 844 ) iv. Khan Muhammad v . The State ( 2008 YLR 1505 ) v. Muhammad Bilal v . The State ( 2009 MLD 335 ) vi. Arifullah v The State (PLD 2013 Peshawar` 32)
5. Learned Addl. P.G opposed the bail application contending that 2200 grams charas has been recovered from the possession of accused, and there is an embargo under Section 51 of the CNS Act, 1997 to grant bail in such like cases, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to concession of bail.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. The Prosecution states that I.O. has been retired and the despite directions of the Court they are unable to identify status of the cases that too have been shown in the CRO. For more than one year challan has been submitted but no charge has been framed. The three grounds are enough to condemn the prosecution for its failure by granting bail to the present applicant/accused. This is how the Prosecution favour the culprits and the Courts obviously cannot keep the accused in jail in petty cases in which all the witnesses are of ficial.
8. In view of the above, concession of bail is extended to the applicant/accused Amjad Khan son of Badshah subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and-would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits.