1. ' This bail application has been moved for the applicant who has been sent up to stand trial under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that on 5-4-1989 the complainant acting on spy information under the supervision of ETO In charge Intelligence Branch, Hyderabad and along with subordinate staff proceeded to the pointed out place and called two mashirs from there and saw one person in suspicious condition of the same identity as given by the spy. After complying with formalities the said person, who disclosed his name as Taj Muhammad alias Tajoo was searched and a plastic Theli containing 30 paper puris containing herion powder and cash Rs, 40 were secured from his shirt pocket. The complainant then took out the heroin powder from the small plastic theli and paper puris and weighed them on the spot which came to be 20 grams and he then took out 1 gram of heroin powder as sample from the said powder which was sent to Chemical Analyser for report. The applicant was arrested and after completing the investigation he was challaned.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Mohammad Hamza Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. He has argued that only 1 gram out of 20 grams of heroin was sent for report of the Chemical Analyser and this being a very negligible quantity, the report received with regard to the 1 gram only cannot be held to be applicable to the entire alleged quantity. He has placed reliance on the case of Farid Khan v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 2069. He has also relied on the case of Shahid Javed v. The State NLR 1984 Cr. L J 501. The next contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the mashirs are not from the locality and the search and recovery, therefore, is not in accordance with the legal provisions as the provisions of 103 Cr. P C have not been, complied with.
4. ' Learned AA.-G. Opposing the bail application has contended that the FIR and the mashirnama show that the complainant had opened all the paper puris and theli containing heroin powder which was mixed and became bulk from which 1 gram of heroin was taken out as a sample. There fore, according to learned. AA.-G. The report pertaining to this 1 gram is to be considered as a report for the entire bulk quantity. He has shown the very report of Chemical Analyser which is positive. Learned A.A.-G: has further contended that the above said two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the present case as in the first case 750 puris of 1 gram each were recovered but only 2 puris were sent for .Report of chemical analyser. In the above-said case contents of all the 750 puris were not mixed. With regard to the second case the learned A.A.-G. Has contended that the Kalil in that case was granted as no objection was made by the State counsel and that no facts were discussed. With regard the second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AA.-G. Has submitted that the two mashirs are shown to be the residents of Talab No,3 and near Shalimar Cinema which are near the localities of the place of occurrence. He has further contended that in the present case the arrest and search was made in the street in open and not inside the house. He has further contended that it has been held that in case of procuring the mashirs the stress is to he laid on respectability rather than locality. He has placed reliance on the case of Ballia v. The State 1985 SCMR 854.
5. ' I agree with the contentions of the learned A.A.-G. And in view of the above discussion I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. The bail application is accordingly rejected.