1. Brief facts of the case are that Sub-Inspector Changaiz Khan lodged F.I.R. Bearing No.2/95 at Police Station Manghopir, Karachi under section 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order stating therein that the complainant alongwith the police party during patrolling duty in police mobile, reached at Nusrat Bhutto Colony at 19-45 hours and found 2 persons in suspicious circumstances and apprehended them with the aid of police party and on their personal search 20 Purees of heroin weighing 16 grams, contained in plastic Thailee was recovered from the shirt of Bahadur Khan alias Bahaderi son of Hazrat Saeed, the applicant, alongwith -Rs.80. From the personal search of Hamid Khawas son of Muhammad Karim 16 Purees of heroin weighing 12 grams wrapped in paper from the right side pocket of shirt of the said person, were secured alongwith Rs.90 cash.
2. S.H.O. In presence of the witnesses, Ghulam Nabi son of Sardar Khan, P.C. Bahadur Khan, P.C.
3. Manzoor Ahmed secured the heroin powder and after preparing memo. Of recovery arrested the accused persons. Accused/applicants were brought at the police station. After completing usual investigations the police submitted challan in the Court having jurisdiction, where bail application moved on behalf of the above applicants/accused was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi West. Hence they have approached this Court for release on bail.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Shafi Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for A: G. For the State.
5. Mr. Muhammad Shari Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, has contended (i) that the accused/applicants are innocent and have been implicated falsely by the police is order to show their efficiency to higher officials; (ii) that the challan has been submitted and the accused persons are remanded to jail custody, the investigations are over and the accused are no more required by the police; (iii) that case of the applicants requires further enquiry; (iv) that there is unexplained delay of 45 minutes in lodging of the F.I.R., as police station is hardly 2 kilometres from the place of occurrence. The learned counsel has referred following authority:--
(1) Rao Muhammad Jalees v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 26: "According to the F.I.R. On the receipt of secret information that the petitioner was selling heroin in his house, the complainant, Police Officer sent a fictitious customer who purchased 2 grams of heroin on the payment of marked currency note of Rs.100. Thereafter, the complainant deputed an A.S.I. To obtain search warrant, and organized a raiding party comprising of 38 police officials and carried out the raid on receipt of search warrant. It is further stated therein that the petitioner was found sitting in the courtyard of his house and selling heroin to three persons. As a result thereof, 414 grams of heroin and currency worth Rs.1,665 including the marked note of Rs.100 were recovered."
6. The facts of this case are quite different and distinguishable from the case of the accused/applicants.
7. Without allegation of any enmity whatsoever at this early stage it cannot be held that the evidence of the police personnel cannot be believed. The incident is of January, 1995 and huge quantity of heroin powder is alleged to have been recovered by the police from the possession of the applicants; the drug truffling has created problems ('or the society and has spoiled the young generation of the country.
8. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the police has not associated any private person as Mashir of the alleged recovery. On the face of it, as already pointed out, the police party was on their routine patrolling duty, apprehended the accused and had recovered heroin powder. Therefore, non-association of private persons in such circumstances, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The recovery of heroin powder weighing 16/12 grams from the possession of the applicants had made out a case falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, and prima facie, there are sufficient grounds to believe that the accused/applicants have committed the offence, for which they have been charge-sheeted.
9. After announcement of the short order the learned counsel for the applicants requested that the trial Court may be given direction for early disposal of the case. Therefore, the learned trial Court is required to take necessary steps for early disposal of the case according to merits.