1. ' Case of the prosecution as stated in the F.I.R. Is that A.S.I. Asadullah Charm, Police Station Dadu on 6-8-1995 at 20-30 hours alongwith subordinate staff was on patrol duty where they saw a car coming towards them which was stopped and found 4 persons alongwith applicant sitting in the car and also 8 Kgs. Bhang was found in the car.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contends that recovery of alleged Bhang is fake and has been foisted upon the applicant and he has been implicated due to mala fides of the police in this case.
3. Mr. A. Latif Ansari, learned A.A.-G. Has very frankly conceded to the grant of bail and has referred to sections 19 and 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 and has contended that A.S.I.
4. Had no authority to take cognizance of the case and to register case against the applicant.
5. ' I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.A.-G. And gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu. He has made certain observations which read as under:-- "From the F.I.R. It appears that Asadullah, A.S.I., Police Station Dadu on checking of car found 8 Kgs.
6. Of Bhang, and in the car applicant Ghulam Ali and others namely Abdul Razzak Jatoi, Abdul Fateh Memon and Roshan Ali Shaikh were sitting. Police arrested applicant Ghulam Ali and also Abdul Fateh Memon and Roshan Ali Shaikh on the spot on 16-8-1995 at 7-45 p.m. And registered the F.I.R., against all the four on the same date at 8-30 p.m. It is after 11 days on 27-8-1995, the police took applicant Ghulam Ali before Resident Magistrate, Dadu, for recording his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Police appears to have followed a novel procedure of investigation, as according to the prosecution case applicant Ghulam Ali is an accused, whereas he was produced before respondent Magistrate, Dadu on 27-8-1995, for recording his statement as prosecution witness. If this statement of applicant Ghulam Ali, under section 164, Cr.P.C. Is to be considered as a statement of prosecution witness, then I am afraid as to who will be the accused in the case. It appears that police hauled up applicant Ghulam Ali and also Abdul Razzak, Abdul Fateh and Roshan Ali and registered case against all the four, but thereafter, for the reasons best known to them, they obviously determined to let-off Abdul Razak Jatoi, Abdul Fateh Memon and Roshan Ali Shaikh, and for doing so, the police produced Ghulam Ali for statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
7. Before the Resident Magistrate, Dadu, although this procedure does not find place in Cr.P.C. If the applicant Ghulam Ali had volunteered to make any confession, then his confession would have been recorded in accordance with procedure provided under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before the Magistrate."
8. In view of the foregoing bail was unnecessarily refused to the applicant. In view of the circumstances I allow bail to the applicant subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. ' Further learned Sessions Judge has in concluding para. Of his order recommended that disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer for observing a novel procedure of recording statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of an accused person as a prosecution witness. S.S.P., Dadu is directed to inform this Court about action taken against the police official concerned.