1. Petitioners, Liaquat Ali alias Liaqi and another, seek bail in a case registered with Police Station Chunian, for an offence under Article 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The allegation contained in the F.I.R. Lodged by Akhtar Ali, was to the effect that the petitioner Liaquat Ali was already in custody in connection with a case registered under Article 3/4 Prohibition Order, 1979. During investigation he deposed that he had kept 2 kilograms heroin in the house of Abdul Ghafoor petitioner No.2, which he could get recovered. In pursuance of the information a police party was constituted, who went to the house of Abdul Ghafoor led by petitioner Liaquat. Abdul Ghafoor petitioner was also present in his house who brought 2 kilograms heroin from a box in his room. Ten grams heroin each was taken and sent for chemical analysis.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been in custody for the past seven months yet the trial has not even commenced. Submits that recovery proceedings are highly doubtful because no witness from the public was associated. Argued that the recovery of heroin from the house of Abdul Ghafoor petitioner cannot be used against Liaquat petitioner. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. 2.I have heard the learn cd counsel and gone through the police file. The challan has been submitted in Court. Liaquat petitioner is involved in another case of heroin. Two kilograms of heron was recovered from the house of Abdul Ghafoor petitioner on the pointation of Liaquat petitioner.
4. Recovery proceedings were witnessed by the police party which went to the house of Abdul Ghafoor petitioner. No mala fides or enmity has been alleged against the police in the instant case.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the recovery proceedings are fake and cannot be accepted because the police could not have managed to plant recovery of 2 kilograms heroin. No ground for bail is made out. Petition is dismissed.