MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHARY, J.- While on Gasht of the area alongwith his nine subordinates on 24.4.1996 at 9.45 p.m. Arshad Pervaiz Inspector/SHO Police Station City Wazirabad, District Gujranwala received a secret information that Muhammad Munir alias Munira was making sale of 'Charass'. He effected the raid and apprehended Muhammad Munir Butt near the Ground on College Road whose person was searched when 220 grams of Charass was taken into possession from his left flank pocket which was taken into possession vide memo, attested by Liaquat Ali, AS1, Tahir Mahmood, ASI and Muhammad Azam, AS1. On search of the person of Muhammad Munir alias Munira an amount of Rs. 275/- was recovered which was taken into possession by the said Police Officer vide memo, attested by the aforesaid police officials. This amount was taken into possession on the ground that the same was the sale price pertaining to the Charass sold by the accused before his apprehension. The SHO sent the complaint and Crime Case No. 91 dated 24.4.1996 was registered at Police Station City Wazirabad under Article 9 (b)(iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1996. Muhammad Munir alias Munira petitioner was arrested t fie re and then. He filed the application for his admission to bail before the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, Gujranwala but remained unsuccessful who has filed this petition before this Court to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
2. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record before me. The contentions of the learned counsel for the"petitioner are that the case of the prosecution against this petitioner is one that does not fail within the prohibitory clause and that the last case registered against this petitioner was during the month of March, 1989. According to him the petitioner was arrested on 24.4.1996 and that he is entitled to be admitted to bail as acceptance of bail in a case not falling under prohibitory clause is a rule. On the contrary learned Assistant Advocate General has laid the emphasis that the petitioner is involved in a case of narcotic substances against whom four cases were earlier registered and this petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
3. At the very outset I would express that it is simply an overdoing on the part of the police that the amount recovered from the person of an accused of the instant matter is termed as the sale money (Wattak). It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a person leaves his house/home he keeps some amount in his pocket. There is no material to make out the sale of the Charass before this petitioner was apprehended by the police. This part of the material can safely be ignored.
4. The four cases were registered against this petitioner during the year 1989. Thereafter till 24.4.1996 no case stands registered against this petitioner. The police is not in possession of any material to establish that this petitioner was earlier convicted in a case. The lapse of sufficient/considerable time between March, 1989 and April, 1996 has made me to hold that the aforesaid aspect of the registration of the earlier cases shall not play adverse role for the purpose of the exercise of discretion in favour of this petitioner. The fact of the matter is that allegedly and prima facie the petitioner is liable under section 9(b)(iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1996 which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. In a case wherein the accused is involved in a matter not falling in the prohibitory clause die acceptance of bail is a rule. The learned AAG has not brought any exceptional material/circumstance before this Court to ignore the said rule. I, therefore, hold dial it s a fit case for the admission of Muhammad Munir alias Munira petitioner- accused to bail.
5. For what has been said above, I accept this application and admit Muhammad Munir alias Munira petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, (Gujranwala with the direction to appear before the learned trial Court on every date ol hearing failing which his bail may be cancelled by the learned trial Court.
6. Copy dasti subject to payment of usual charges, if any.