ORDERSAJJAD AHMED SIPRA, J.-The brief facts of the present bail petition are that an F.I.R No.18/89 dated 28.1.1989 under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was registered at P.S Cantt:Bahawalpur.
2. According to the F.I.R the S.H.O of said P.S had come to know through a secret information that a person was selling heroin at the road side ground on Bahawalpur-Ahmedpur East Road. Therefore, a person was sent as a fictitious customer to entrap the said heroin sellor, who purchased one purri of heroin,and thereafter the accused Zakir Hussain was arrested. On the personal search of the accused 15 Purris of heroin weighing 15 grams were recovered. Some money was also recovered from the accused. The heroin alleged to have been recovered was sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report.
3. The accused had applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur which was rejected vide his order dated 15.2.1989.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues for bail on the following grounds:
(1) . That there is no witness of the alleged recovery from the locality itself, and thus the provisions of section 103 Cr. P.C have been violated. ResuItantly there is no recovery in the eyes of law.
(2) . That only one gram of heroin has been sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report, and that no resuIt of the Chemical Examination has been received even after a lapse of one month.
(3) . That as only one gram of heroin has been sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report, therefore, even a positive report will not bring the case of the petitioner within the prohibitory clause.
(4) . That the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and is no more required by the police.
(5) . That he belongs to a respectable family and is not a previous convict and that bail should not be refused as punishment.
5. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following authorities:-
(1) . N.L.R 1989 S.D page 106 (Ghulam Fareed vs The State). Heroin it was held that accused was released on bail on the ground that only one out of thirteen grams of heroin recovered from him had been sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report and that recovery memo was not attested by any witness of locality.
(2) . N.L.R 1988 S.D page 487/(2) (Fida Hussain vs The State). Heroin the bail was granted to the accused who was not a previous convict and was no longer required for investigation, aIthough, he was charged with offence under Articles 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order,1979.
(3) . 1986 P.Cr.LJ 1574 (Niaz vs The State). Heroin the bail was granted to the accused as the report of the Chemical Examiner had not been received after even a lapse of two months.
6. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail. However, the learned counsel for the State confirmed that only one gram of heroin has been sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report. He further confirmed that there is no witness of the locality in respect of the recovery alleged. He further confirmed that the report of the Chemical Examiner has not been received as yet. He further confirmed that the accused was no longer required for investigation.
7. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the State, and under the facts and circumstances of the case, and placing reliance on the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused/petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C/ Duty Magistrate, Bahawalpur.