1. ' SHAH NAWAZ A. AWAN, J.--- This order will dispose of bail application filed on behalf of applicant Abdul Haq alias Qavi who has been booked to face his trial under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order. 1979 vide Crime No,3 of 1995 registered at Excise Police Station, Mirpurkhas.
2. ' Briefly the facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that on 20-3-1995, on spy information, that Abdul Haq alias Qavi, the present applicant, was dealing in narcotics, therefore, the complainant along with S.I.P. Attaur Rehman, In charge C.I.A. Police Mirpurkhas formed a joint police party and went to Chandni Chowk, the pointed place, as per spy information, at 12-30 p.m.
3. And noticed one person in suspicious condition standing at the road side. The complainant and S.I.P. Attaur Rehman of C.I.A. Introduced themselves to the accused and made enquiries on which he disclosed his name and residence. The complainant took his personal search and secured a plastic bag from his hand and on opening the said bag they found three packets of heroin, two packets of opium and four packets of Charas. The complainant weighed the recovered articles, in which the heroin was 3 Kgs., opium 2 Kgs. And Chars 4 Kgs. Out of which 20 grams heroin, 50 grams opium and 50 grams Charas were separated and sealed for chemical examination. Thereafter the complainant took the property in custody and arrested the present applicant under the Mashirnama.
4. ' The bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas on 13-11-1995, hence the present bail application.
5. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari the learned Assistant A.-G. For the State and perused the record.
6. ' The contention of the learned Advocate is that applicant has been implicated in this case due to enmity with the Excise Police and the alleged heroin, opium and Charas have been foisted against him; that the applicant was arrested on 20-3-1995 and since then he is behind the bars without the trial being completed; that the alleged recovery of narcotics is not from the possession of the applicant which was lying on the road; that one of the Mashirs namely Rasheed Ahmed has sworn his affidavit in which he has exonerated the applicant of the commission of the offence whereas other Mashir is a stock-witness of the Excise Police, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their evidence and further that the entire heroin, opium and Charas was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report which creates serious doubt about the recovery of these articles from the possession of the applicant. In support of his contentions learned Advocate has placed reliance on the following cases:--
(1) Muhammad Parvez v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 677,
(2) Muhammad Akhtar v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1375,
(3) Zafar Iqbal v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 678,
(4) Muhammad Sibtain v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2547.
7. ' On the other hand Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari, learned Assistant Advocate-General has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that huge quantity of heroin, opium and Charas was recovered from the exclusive possession of the present applicant. He has further contended that this offence is tribal by the Special Court as provided under the Ordinance VI of 1995 Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, which was promulgated on 5-1-1995, and further that normally entire quantity recovered is not sent to the Chemical Examiner for his report but small quantity is sent to the Laboratory to see whether the alleged articles are narcotics or not. He has further argued that report of the Chemical Examiner is positive and the prosecution has collected ample evidence against the applicant in commission of the offence. Learned Assistant Advocate- General has placed his reliance on the following unreported cases:--
(1) Javed v. The State (Criminal Bail Application No,32 of 1996), decided on 14-2-1996: 1996 PCr.LJ 1110 (Circuit Court at Hyderabad).
(2) Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State (Criminal Bail Application No,524 of 1995), decided on 19th December, 1995 (Circuit Court at Hyderabad).
8. ' It is an admitted position that offence occurred on 20-3-1995 and the Ordinance VI of 1995 Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 came into existence on 5-1-1995 therefore, the applicant is to be tried under the above said Ordinance. The quantity of heroin recovered from the applicant being 3 Kgs. Punishment prescribed under Article 9 is death or imprisonment for life, therefore, the alleged offence committed by the applicant falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. From the record it appears that huge quantity of heroin, opium and Chars was recovered from the possession of the applicant for which proper Mashirnama was prepared. Applicant is stated to be dealer of narcotics and the offence of narcotics are increasing day by day in this part of the country and if these offences are not checked and controlled there will be no end to it. It cannot be conveniently overlooked that use of intoxicants is considerably increasing and fast extending its adverse effects towards youth of the country which is hazardous to the society at large.
9. ' Moreover, the case has not proceeded as yet therefore, the affidavit sworn by Mashir Rasheed Ahmed cannot be considered at this stage as prima l8 facie it amounts to tampering with evidence. The facts of the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant are very much different than the facts of the present case as in this case huge quantity of narcotics articles were recovered from the applicant.
10. ' There are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is involved in the commission of the crime alleged against him. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this bail application