SAJJAD AHMED SIPRA, J.- The petitioner, along with 2 others, is accused of offences under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, vide FIR No.60 dated 7.4.1990registered at Police Station Kundian, District Mianwali.
2. According to the FIR, in brief, the police had intercepted a truck being driven by Amir Abdullah for checking. The three persons including the driver of the truck tried to run away but the petitioner was caught hold of whereas the other 2 ran away. It is further slated therein that the names of the other 2 persons were disclosed as Amir Abdullah driver and Faizullah. On search of the said truck 62 killos and 800 grams of charas, 77 killos and 600 grams of opium, and 1 killo heroine were recovered, in addition to the fire arms detailed in the FIR. It is further staled in the FIR that 10 grams of heroin was sent to the chemical examiner for his report whereas the 3 packets of charas and 3 packets of opium of 10 grams each were taken out of the 3 bags of charas and 3 bags of opium recovered and sent to the chemical examiner for his report.3. The learned counsel lor the petitioner contends for his bail on the following grounds:- i) . That the truck was being driven by the co-accused Amir Abdullah and 'that the petitioner was only a passenger thereon and did not know anything about the contents recovered from the truck; ii) . That as only 10 grams of heroin have been sent to the chemicalexaminer, therefore, the case of the petitioner is not hit by the prohibitory clause; iii) . That as stated in" the FIR the alleged recovery had taken place fromthe truck, therefore, according to Article 2-L of the "Order", the truck not being a public place, no cognizance of the offence could have been taken by the police.
4. In this respect, it was pointed out that "vehicle" has been defined as a "place" in Article 2-J but has been omitted from Article 2-L where a definition is , given of a "public place". Therefore, it was argued that the intention of the law is very clear which is to the effect that a "vehicle" is not a public place, and as such the search and seizure of the charas, opium and heroin and the weapons in the instant case is illegal, as it is in contravention of the provision of Article I6 and Article 22 of the Order read with section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
5. That both the co-accused of the petitioner have been declared to be innocent by the police, therefore, it was argued that it creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story and the benefit of the same should go to the petitioner even at the bail stage. To support his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance upon the following authorities:-
1. Mukhtar alias Kalu Vs. The State. 11988 P Crl.L.J/957).
2. Muhammad Yamecn and 3 others Vs. The State (1987 P.Crl.LJ. 1576).
3. Muhammad Bashir alias Douba Vs. The Stale. (N.L.R. 1988. S.D. 474), and
4. Mansha Khan and 2 others Vs. The State. (1977 SGMR 449), and
5. Mussarat Shah Vs. The State. (P.L.D. 1990 Peshawar 158).
That the case has been investigatcd.By the complainant as a police office which is a mockery in the eyes of law as held in Ashiq alias Kaloo Vs. The State (1989 P.Crl.LJ 001), that the petitioner has been in custody for about over 6 months and he is no longer required by the police and his further detention shall serve no useful purpose.
6. Therefore, it was argued that the accumulative effect of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that under the circumstances of the present case, the law should not be stretched in favour of the prosecution and benefit of doubt, any arising, must go to the accused as has been held in Amir Vs. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277).
7. The learned counsel for the Slate has opposed the bail petition but has failed to controvert the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
8. Accepting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and placing reliance on the authorities cited on his behalf, the petitioner is hereby admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,(KM)/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.c/Duty Magistrate, Mianwali.