1. ' Zahid Mahmood, petitioner, seeks bail after arrest in a case F.I.R. No,630, dated 22-9-1992, under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, registered at Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore.
2. ' The prosecution story in brief is that on disclosure of Mst. Nargis, who was already in police custody, that she had been purchasing heroin from the petitioner and his wife Mst. Shahzadi who also deals in heroin, the police conducted a raid at the house of the petitioner, who after throwing away a packet of 50 grams of heroin made good his escape, while his wife Mst. Shazadi was apprehended and 35 grams of heroin was recovered from her possession during her personal search by a Lady Constable No,8915. The aforesaid heroin was taken into possession by the raiding party.
3. ' The petitioner's bail plea was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, twice on 9-1-1993 and 22-6-1993; hence, this petition.
4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police' has raided the house of the petitioner without any search warrant; that the recovery of the alleged heroin is violative of section 103, Cr.P.C., as no public witness was associated to join the recovery proceedings; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up for the last about 8 months and the trial has not yet commenced. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Suleman v.
5. The State 1990 P Cr. L J 1302 and Muhammad Ashfaq v. The State 1989 A L D 595(2).
6. ' On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed this petition, by submitting that it was from street that the alleged recovery of heroin was effected, as such, the warrants were not required. He, however, admits that the petitioner is not a previous convict.
7. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The alleged heroin was not recovered from the physical possession of the petitioner and was stated to have been thrown away by him at the spot. The question whether the recovery of the I alleged heroin was effected from the house or from the street would require further inquiry, as the same would be evaluated by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence, as such, it would be premature to give a verdict on the non-cognizability of the case as well as on the violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up for the last about eight months and is stated to be a previous non-convict.
8. ' In view of the above circumstances, I, without going deep into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, and by placing reliance on the above-referred authorities, allow bail to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,35,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore.